Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Buster15 said:
Yes.
In future customers are going to be far more inclined to choose to do business with banks and businesses which trade ethically.
And as we are already seeing people are far more aware of the dangers of climate change.
Don't believe me. Then why are car manufacturers spending billion on non fossil fuel power systems.
And. Why are people shunning diesel engines.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The bank I work for makes a lot of their environmentally friendly policies at the corporate level and assesses all commercial lending from an environmental risk perspective.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
Absolutely. The bank I work for makes a lot of their environmentally friendly policies at the corporate level and assesses all commercial lending from an environmental risk perspective.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Your bank will benefit from this policy while others stagnate or fall.
 
Everyone who is actively fighting to accelerate climate change needs to be brought to the hague and hanged for crimes against humanity. It's preposterous how we're wiping out vast swathes of biological life and making the planet uninhabitable just so a bunch of psychopathic heirs can make another billion.
 
Silva said:
Everyone who is actively fighting to accelerate climate change needs to be brought to the hague and hanged for crimes against humanity. It's preposterous how we're wiping out vast swathes of biological life and making the planet uninhabitable just so a bunch of psychopathic heirs can make another billion.
Click to expand...

That gets my vote.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Installed capacity for electricity generation by renewables surpassed coal for the first time in the US recently. Sorry Donald...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/business/renewable-energy-coal-capacity/index.html
Click to expand...
On the other hand BP review of last year had the global energy consumption go up by 2.9 %, which is about twice the average of the last 10 years (1.5 %). It's also the largest increase since 2010. Carbon emissions are up by 2 %, this is mainly from natural gas. Coal and oil use are up by 1.4 and 1.5 %, respectively.
China accounts for about a third of the increase in energy consumption whereas the US accounts for a fifth (US had the largest increase in the past 30 years).

Speaking of this, I've started reading a book a former colleague of mine has written on the climate crisis. It has some hard numbers but also some more philosophical stuff about why we keep fecking shit up when we have (in a lot of developed countries) moved to a post-material society. Anyway, some numbers: The global GDP has increased 3 % per year since 1970, the GDP obviously comes with an increase in emissions. In order to sustain a growth in global GDP of 3 % per year until the year 2100 we need to better our emission factor (CO2/$) by 5.8 % per year in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. From 1970-2010 we bettered our emission factor by 1.6 % per year. From 2010 to 2017 we bettered our emission factor by... 1.6 % per year. In order to sustain have a negative growth in global GDP of 1 % per year and stay below the 2 degrees Celsius of warming we need to improve our emission factor by 1.8 %. So yeah, we're pretty fecked unless we decide collectively to change our lifestyles pretty sharpish.
 
Maagge said:
On the other hand BP review of last year had the global energy consumption go up by 2.9 %, which is about twice the average of the last 10 years (1.5 %). It's also the largest increase since 2010. Carbon emissions are up by 2 %, this is mainly from natural gas. Coal and oil use are up by 1.4 and 1.5 %, respectively.
China accounts for about a third of the increase in energy consumption whereas the US accounts for a fifth (US had the largest increase in the past 30 years).

Speaking of this, I've started reading a book a former colleague of mine has written on the climate crisis. It has some hard numbers but also some more philosophical stuff about why we keep fecking shit up when we have (in a lot of developed countries) moved to a post-material society. Anyway, some numbers: The global GDP has increased 3 % per year since 1970, the GDP obviously comes with an increase in emissions. In order to sustain a growth in global GDP of 3 % per year until the year 2100 we need to better our emission factor (CO2/$) by 5.8 % per year in order to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. From 1970-2010 we bettered our emission factor by 1.6 % per year. From 2010 to 2017 we bettered our emission factor by... 1.6 % per year. In order to sustain have a negative growth in global GDP of 1 % per year and stay below the 2 degrees Celsius of warming we need to improve our emission factor by 1.8 %. So yeah, we're pretty fecked unless we decide collectively to change our lifestyles pretty sharpish.
Click to expand...
Ha, I was just hoping to bring some good news... but yes it’s also worth noting that was installed capacity relative to coal, not necessarily utilized. And that coal has largely been displaced with natural gas, which makes it only a partial net-positive.

To your other points, it is troubling as the upticks in emissions are tied to strong economies. In the US, much of this was from trucking, commercial air traffic, and heavy industry; all related to projected economic growth that has been the singular focus in the post-2008 political climate. That focus is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Organic Potatoes said:
Ha, I was just hoping to bring some good news... but yes it’s also worth noting that was installed capacity relative to coal, not necessarily utilized. And that coal has largely been displaced with natural gas, which makes it only a partial net-positive.

To your other points, it is troubling as the upticks in emissions are tied to strong economies. In the US, much this was from trucking, commercial air traffic, and heavy industry; all related to projected economic growth that has been the singular focus in the post-2008 political climate. That focus is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.
Click to expand...

All rather depressing.
I do believe in the ingenuity of the human race and it's ability to innovative. Necessity is after all the mother of invention.
But. And it is a very big but. The political leaders cannot have it both ways. They all see economic growth as THE key metric on which they are judged.
And when things get difficult, that will always trump (no pun intended) climate change/green policies.
And that is the main problem.
In order to succeed, we need to act as One and not as 200 odd nations.
We all depend on our small planet and I strongly believe that we all need to put the needs of our one planet first.
Is that possible. Of course.
Is that likely.....
 
Will we likely see more intense storms and Tsunami's in the future and how, if at all, are earthquakes influenced by climate change?
 
0le said:
Will we likely see more intense storms and Tsunami's in the future and how, if at all, are earthquakes influenced by climate change?
Click to expand...
Yes to the first, though it would be improper to ascribe blame for a single event. The increased chance of intensity does not equal direct causation. Tsunamis are a different animal altogether.

To the last point kinda-sorta, though not directly or in the manner you’d expect. The intensity of extraction required to keep modern oil & gas wells flowing produces massive amounts of wastewater (it’s not just oil that flows out). This brine water has to go somewhere so it is pumped into non-producing formations, upsetting the balance of rock layers unperturbed for millennia that often fall upon dormant fault lines. That is why there is a relatively new state in the contiguous US with the most seismic activity above 3.0: interwebs brownie points if you can guess that one without googling it...
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to think widescale geo engineering is inevitable. We aren't going to change so we're going to look for desperate tech "solutions" instead. The thought depresses me slightly.
 
Silva said:
Click to expand...


Holy fecking shit.

I thought I was incapable of being surprised by the stances of corporate shills, but those glorious bastards have out-done themselves.

So this would not be covered by the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Shameless fecks...
 
We’re fecked and U.S. can get fecked, fecking 3rd world country. Managed to feck up something so bad in 50 years that was living in harmony for millions of years.
 
Last edited:
Was reading an article earlier that coal consumption globally is currently increasing and is likely to continue to do so with the developing African countries turning to it for increased demands. South East Asia increasingly using more coal too.

Considering how important a cleaner energy mix has shown to be it's depressing to read.
 
Smores said:
Was reading an article earlier that coal consumption globally is currently increasing and is likely to continue to do so with the developing African countries turning to it for increased demands. South East Asia increasingly using more coal too.

Considering how important a cleaner energy mix has shown to be it's depressing to read.
Click to expand...

Replacing Coal with gas in the short/medium term would decrease the CO2 equivalent significantly, given that it has around half the "footprint" per energypart created.
It is not a perfect solution, but it works and its a better than burning coal. Problem is that many of the most prominent Climate Change Advocates are only looking at the "ideal" solutions that are 100% clean, but not doable on a large scale in undeveloped countries for a number of years. And since gas is not "clean" it is not in the solution spectrum. Also it does not help that those politicans that are speaking about the danger of not taking these seriously are often seriously incompetent when identifying viable solutions to this existential issue.
 
In the 90s car use was pretty modest in my experience, many regular private people used to do 3-7k a year then it started to get crazy. I couldn't believe the jump in mileage per year in the 2000s. Also makes it difficult to buy a used car as cars that are just a few years old now have done over a 100k.

I started to hear about everyday people driving for example from Leeds to Manchester for their job. Even at the time I just thought what a waste fuel, surely you either move or someone can do your job here. Do you need to be burning a tank of fuel belting down the motorway twice a day, not to mention the stress and hours wasted in the journey. That is just one person, it's quite odd how so many people need to drive 20-40k, as technology gets better with instant contact with anyone, video calls getting easier and easier etc that people find excuses to drive up and down the country more and more and throw cars away in auctions.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Replacing Coal with gas in the short/medium term would decrease the CO2 equivalent significantly, given that it has around half the "footprint" per energypart created.
It is not a perfect solution, but it works and its a better than burning coal. Problem is that many of the most prominent Climate Change Advocates are only looking at the "ideal" solutions that are 100% clean, but not doable on a large scale in undeveloped countries for a number of years. And since gas is not "clean" it is not in the solution spectrum. Also it does not help that those politicans that are speaking about the danger of not taking these seriously are often seriously incompetent when identifying viable solutions to this existential issue.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the conversation I was having earlier with my colleague. People need to become more realistic and get on with this immediately.
 
redshaw said:
In the 90s car use was pretty modest in my experience, many regular private people used to do 3-7k a year then it started to get crazy. I couldn't believe the jump in mileage per year in the 2000s. Also makes it difficult to buy a used car as cars that are just a few years old now have done over a 100k.

I started to hear about everyday people driving for example from Leeds to Manchester for their job. Even at the time I just thought what a waste fuel, surely you either move or someone can do your job here. Do you need to be burning a tank of fuel belting down the motorway twice a day, not to mention the stress and hours wasted in the journey. That is just one person, it's quite odd how so many people need to drive 20-40k, as technology gets better with instant contact with anyone, video calls getting easier and easier etc that people find excuses to drive up and down the country more and more and throw cars away in auctions.
Click to expand...

For me it is not even the transport of persons that is a problem in that area but the transport of goods when it is not necessary. I think taxes should work totally differerent to get back to more local production and local waste management.
 
Blackwidow said:
For me it is not even the transport of persons that is a problem in that area but the transport of goods when it is not necessary. I think taxes should work totally differerent to get back to more local production and local waste management.
Click to expand...

I read that in the UK, sales of low emission cars is falling.
What a surprise...
A few years ago car manufacturers were encouraged to develop and produce vehicles with a CO2 output of less than 100g/km.
And the inducement to buy these cars was zero road tax.
Brilliant idea. And many manufacturers sold such cars and I bought one. A Ford Fiesta ecoboost with a brilliant little 1l three cylinder petrol turbo engine. And it averaged just over 50mpg.

A year or so ago the idiot government decided to stop the zero road tax policy and now such cars are charged £140.
This type of stupid decision making sends completely the wrong message to the public at a time when we are supposed to be encouraged to reduce our CO2 output.
 
Buster15 said:
I read that in the UK, sales of low emission cars is falling.
What a surprise...
A few years ago car manufacturers were encouraged to develop and produce vehicles with a CO2 output of less than 100g/km.
And the inducement to buy these cars was zero road tax.
Brilliant idea. And many manufacturers sold such cars and I bought one. A Ford Fiesta ecoboost with a brilliant little 1l three cylinder petrol turbo engine. And it averaged just over 50mpg.

A year or so ago the idiot government decided to stop the zero road tax policy and now such cars are charged £140.
This type of stupid decision making sends completely the wrong message to the public at a time when we are supposed to be encouraged to reduce our CO2 output.
Click to expand...

The sale of zero emission cars is up though and that is where we will be by 2025-30. Right now the plug in electric vehicles are too expensive but give it 3 years and they will be as cheap as the petrol/ diesel ones and at that point the running costs of internal combustion engines will see mass adoption.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The sale of zero emission cars is up though and that is where we will be by 2025-30. Right now the plug in electric vehicles are too expensive but give it 3 years and they will be as cheap as the petrol/ diesel ones and at that point the running costs of internal combustion engines will see mass adoption.
Click to expand...

I do hope that you are right my friend.
It is rather confusing when the government gives such mixed messages.
Anyway. It is good news about passing a law making zero the UK carbon neutral by 2050.
I just hope that people don't think that we can kick the climate change actions down the road until then.
We ought to be doing so much more right now.
 
Silva said:
Everyone who is actively fighting to accelerate climate change needs to be brought to the hague and hanged for crimes against humanity. It's preposterous how we're wiping out vast swathes of biological life and making the planet uninhabitable just so a bunch of psychopathic heirs can make another billion.
Click to expand...
Best post on the forum this year.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Just read a vaguely optimistic article on climate change. Get out there and plant trees, folks.
Click to expand...
Oddly that’s what I’ve done today. 12 horsechestnuts and 6 oak. A couple of them self seeded in my garden so I potted them and I planted the rest to see if they came up. I’ve put them on the edge of the wood where I walk my dog where I think they’ll be ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.