Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

Jippy said:
Extinction Rebellion rage in Bristol.

This man ripped down an Extinction Rebellion Bristol road-block and doesn't care if he's arrested

He laughed as he recalled: "They were shouting, 'Call the police, call the police.' I told them it wasn't a legal road closure."

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/...v9qh0FG1cBVpmvmWnuKGzIoy5sMpicVxaqDbCt-o_nWXg
Click to expand...

Well I live in Bristol and the Climate Change protesters did exactly what they intended to do which was to raise the profile of this hugely important problem and I for one fully support them.
The road closures were well publisised on the local tv and radio and the police were able to divert traffic.
There were traffic problems. But these are nothing like the scale of the CC problems facing us and our children.
 
Buster15 said:
Well I live in Bristol and the Climate Change protesters did exactly what they intended to do which was to raise the profile of this hugely important problem and I for one fully support them.
The road closures were well publisised on the local tv and radio and the police were able to divert traffic.
There were traffic problems. But these are nothing like the scale of the CC problems facing us and our children.
Click to expand...
The comment section has a debate on whether Mr tear the barriers down with his bare hands or the protestors are the snowflakes here.
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Whoever in the Western world thinks you can recycle enough to offset your carbon footprint is a mug. You could buy a plastic bag every day of the year and throw directly in the bin and never get close to the emissions from a flight to Thailand.
 
Maagge said:
Whoever in the Western world thinks you can recycle enough to offset your carbon footprint is a mug. You could buy a plastic bag every day of the year and throw directly in the bin and never get close to the emissions from a flight to Thailand.
Click to expand...

Quite so. I see climate change and recycling as two issues, with the former being significantly more problematic.
It is interesting how the debate has recently moved toward air travel.
We have a very fine line to tread between being able to take the odd foreign holiday and a real climate disaster.
Clearly people still need to travel. However, air travel has been increasing very quickly and despite jet engines being far far more efficient, air travel burns massive amounts of fossil fuel.

Electrifying the railways will give the travelling public some options and rail travel may become the Toyota Prius of tomorrow.
 
Buster15 said:
Quite so. I see climate change and recycling as two issues, with the former being significantly more problematic.
It is interesting how the debate has recently moved toward air travel.
We have a very fine line to tread between being able to take the odd foreign holiday and a real climate disaster.
Clearly people still need to travel. However, air travel has been increasing very quickly and despite jet engines being far far more efficient, air travel burns massive amounts of fossil fuel.

Electrifying the railways will give the travelling public some options and rail travel may become the Toyota Prius of tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Two completely different issues. Recycling is not an issue that will danger the life of most lifeforms on earth over the next 100 years, but in various media gets more attention than CC because of pictures of sick animals getting caught or swallowing plastic waste. Not good at all, but these animals will go extinct(or a significant decline in their population) due to climate change in the future regardless, unless something is done (decreasing/stopping the rate at which the climate and environment is changing or modify the animals to make them adaptable to the rate of which their habitat is changing).

Electrifying anything only helps IF the electric energy comes from a good source --> Better to drive petrol fueled car in Germany compared to a Tesla, if the Tesla is driven by electricity from a coal power plant. The same argument can be made with electric vs diesel-fueled locomotives.
 
Buster15 said:
Electrifying the railways will give the travelling public some options and rail travel may become the Toyota Prius of tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I'm currently on my way from Belfast to Copenhagen using land transport, and I hope whoever comes up with a simple, straightforward way to book tickets for such an endeavour ends up minted.

EDIT: At the moment of writing I'm between Brussels and Cologne and apparently the trains from here to Hamburg are 100 % green electricity.
 
Buster15 said:
Quite so. I see climate change and recycling as two issues, with the former being significantly more problematic.
It is interesting how the debate has recently moved toward air travel.
We have a very fine line to tread between being able to take the odd foreign holiday and a real climate disaster.
Clearly people still need to travel. However, air travel has been increasing very quickly and despite jet engines being far far more efficient, air travel burns massive amounts of fossil fuel.

Electrifying the railways will give the travelling public some options and rail travel may become the Toyota Prius of tomorrow.
Click to expand...

The aerospace needs genuine innovation. At least 10 years ago however, I got the impression new designs were more about improving fuel efficiency rather than moving away from fossil fuels. I don't think its changed much recently.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Electrifying anything only helps IF the electric energy comes from a good source --> Better to drive petrol fueled car in Germany compared to a Tesla, if the Tesla is driven by electricity from a coal power plant. The same argument can be made with electric vs diesel-fueled locomotives.
Click to expand...

I always thought that one purpose of using public transport is that it allows a group of people to travel and therefore reduce emission. If all those traveling by train instead decided to use cars, the emission would be greater.
 
Maagge said:
I'm currently on my way from Belfast to Copenhagen using land transport, and I hope whoever comes up with a simple, straightforward way to book tickets for such an endeavour ends up minted.

EDIT: At the moment of writing I'm between Brussels and Cologne and apparently the trains from here to Hamburg are 100 % green electricity.
Click to expand...

You should be very proud of yourself and I really do hope that your journey goes well. Enjoy the views.
 
0le said:
The aerospace needs genuine innovation. At least 10 years ago however, I got the impression new designs were more about improving fuel efficiency rather than moving away from fossil fuels. I don't think its changed much recently.
Click to expand...

You are right. The prime driver has been to increase gas turbine engine efficiency.
Don't underestimate the importance of this. Rolls-Royce for example has increased efficiency by 40% compared to earlier engines.
There is a move towards all electric aircraft but that is not an easy option due to the massive power requirements.
 
Buster15 said:
You are right. The prime driver has been to increase gas turbine engine efficiency.
Don't underestimate the importance of this. Rolls-Royce for example has increased efficiency by 40% compared to earlier engines.
There is a move towards all electric aircraft but that is not an easy option due to the massive power requirements.
Click to expand...

Yup and weight requirements. Reserve factors of like 1.5 :D
 
0le said:
Yup and weight requirements. Reserve factors of like 1.5 :D
Click to expand...

You sound like an engineer.
Weight has always been the enemy of efficiency both in cars and of course aircraft.
The future composites will greatly help reduce mass.
But transitioning away from the extreemly powerful gas turbine engine will be a massive jump.
 
Buster15 said:
You sound like an engineer.
Weight has always been the enemy of efficiency both in cars and of course aircraft.
The future composites will greatly help reduce mass.
But transitioning away from the extreemly powerful gas turbine engine will be a massive jump.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do have a limited background. Composites are being extensively researched, and are already in use in both industries. There is a lot of funding for understanding existing materials and new manufacturing techniques.

Gas turbines are absolutely phenomenal devices. I think one solution which may be adopted will be to use a hybrid of sort - use a jet engines to get to high subsonic cruise speed and maybe a "clean" engine for cruise. I can imagine it would be a nightmare to pass regulations though. Saving that, maybe a physicist will discover teleportation :D.
 
0le said:
I always thought that one purpose of using public transport is that it allows a group of people to travel and therefore reduce emission. If all those traveling by train instead decided to use cars, the emission would be greater.
Click to expand...

Certainly if they used the same source for energy.
I'm not comparing the emission of cars vs trains. I'm comparing energy sources for the same transportation method. The issue is not a lack of trains or public transport, nor are the big issues related to climate change dependent on methods of human transportation.

Biggest issue in regards to Co2 emission (and Co2 equivalents) globally, is by far the creation of energy(1).
Where does this energy come from and what is it used for? Transportation stand for roughly 10-15% dependent on source used (2), wheras agriculture, industry and electricity/heating are all near double the output. Even though we have the technological means to solve the enery creation issue, the global political willingness to due this is not there at all. Which is strange from most logical and sustainable perspectives, given that the reneable sources like wind and solar energy will not run out in the forseable future, while coal, oil and gas certainly will. It is like the politicians had some sort of incentive to continue prefering non-renewable sources...

(1) https://www.transparency-partnershi...t-recent-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
(2) https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
 
0le said:
Yes, I do have a limited background. Composites are being extensively researched, and are already in use in both industries. There is a lot of funding for understanding existing materials and new manufacturing techniques.

Gas turbines are absolutely phenomenal devices. I think one solution which may be adopted will be to use a hybrid of sort - use a jet engines to get to high subsonic cruise speed and maybe a "clean" engine for cruise. I can imagine it would be a nightmare to pass regulations though. Saving that, maybe a physicist will discover teleportation :D.
Click to expand...

You probably have as good an understanding as most.
The National Composite research facility is located in Bristol at the Bristol and Bath Science Park and I was fortunate enough to have a tour. The stuff they are developing is way much more advanced than the current carbon fibre materials. The future is very much composite, much lighter and much stronger.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Two completely different issues. Recycling is not an issue that will danger the life of most lifeforms on earth over the next 100 years, but in various media gets more attention than CC because of pictures of sick animals getting caught or swallowing plastic waste. Not good at all, but these animals will go extinct(or a significant decline in their population) due to climate change in the future regardless, unless something is done (decreasing/stopping the rate at which the climate and environment is changing or modify the animals to make them adaptable to the rate of which their habitat is changing).

Electrifying anything only helps IF the electric energy comes from a good source --> Better to drive petrol fueled car in Germany compared to a Tesla, if the Tesla is driven by electricity from a coal power plant. The same argument can be made with electric vs diesel-fueled locomotives.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Electric cars are inherently more efficient than ICE cars. I will look for he study that showed that.
 
For people wanting to know more about CC and its ramifications, causes, effects etc should give the Ashes Ashes podcast a listen.
Factual(for those of us that believe in science and research) presentation of issues like water shortage, Co2 levels and other important elements tied to our future.

https://ashesashes.org/
 
Fosu-Mens said:
For people wanting to know more about CC and its ramifications, causes, effects etc should give the Ashes Ashes podcast a listen.
Factual(for those of us that believe in science and research) presentation of issues like water shortage, Co2 levels and other important elements tied to our future.

https://ashesashes.org/
Click to expand...
Cheers will check that out
 
The story is super-boring, but I'm intrigued by the 'Canaraies on Tour' protest.

‘Lot of work’ to do to show why £212m bypass needed, admits leader

10178976.png


'The pair dress as canaries while campaigning due to their association with the warning of danger, or pollution.'

https://www.warringtonguardian.co.u...rsv_nmL6oBnK2Ng4QlPQeE6XdP4SBeEjKa_CJHpIcC-Zc
 
researchers estimate that there are about three hundred superyachts in operation around the world. A person has to have individual wealth upward of $30 million in order to afford even the smallest one; the upper price is close to $1 billion. These things guzzle oil and spew pollution. Tally it up, and the world’s superyacht fleet uses over thirty-two million gallons of oil and produces 627 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year — all of it for the personal enjoyment of the extremely rich. The world’s superyachts consume and pollute more than entire nations.

Super homes, which the researchers define as homes greater than twenty-five thousand square feet, are similarly devastating for the environment. The average square footage of these homes is closer to forty thousand, and their average price is just under $28 million. The researchers couldn’t calculate the entire ecological footprint of these homes, so they just stuck with the impacts of wood sourcing, assuming it was all of standard wood stock (of course, many luxury homes use hard-to-source exotic materials, too).

The average home, they concluded, requires harvesting twenty trees, while a super home requires 380 trees. An average home results in 74,880 pounds of carbon sequestration loss, while a super home results in a loss of 1,422,720 pounds. The carbon footprint of super homes is astronomical — all so the rich can have some extra space to roam around in.
Click to expand...

And, finally, there are private jets. There are only about fifteen thousand of them registered in the United States. The entire fleet is in operation a total of 17 million hours per year, burning roughly 345 gallons an hour. Jet fuel produces twenty-one pounds of carbon emissions per gallon. That means that the carbon footprint of the United States’ private jet fleet is about fifty-six tons per year. The entire nation of Burundi produces less than half the carbon emissions than the US elite does with its private jets alone — to say nothing of their luxury cars, their super homes, and their superyachts.
Click to expand...

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/environment-rich-people-tesla-powerwall-super-yacht-private-jet



we have to kill the rich before they kill the entire planet
 
Sweet Square said:
Click to expand...

Wait, what's wrong with hydro?
I'd also hold on to nuclear for the foreseeable.

But it is as they say, we haven't replaced anything when we discovered new energy sources we just added it to our consumption.
 
Maagge said:
Wait, what's wrong with hydro?
I'd also hold on to nuclear for the foreseeable.

But it is as they say, we haven't replaced anything when we discovered new energy sources we just added it to our consumption.
Click to expand...

Dams can have massive repercussions on the biosphere.
 
I’m sure some here must live in Whaley. Hope you all stay safe

The sheer amount of rain causing the damage to the dam and then the need for evacuation
 
Maagge said:
Wait, what's wrong with hydro?
I'd also hold on to nuclear for the foreseeable.
Click to expand...

I think we have to do a ton more. If the goal is to reverse the growth of co2 in the atmosphere, and fast, then we have to build more nuclear stations - and a load of them, everywhere. Which will be hugely unpopular of course. As well as massive reforestation. There is stuff we can do, even if it’s unpalatable.
 
nickm said:
I think we have to do a ton more. If the goal is to reverse the growth of co2 in the atmosphere, and fast, then we have to build more nuclear stations - and a load of them, everywhere. Which will be hugely unpopular of course. As well as massive reforestation. There is stuff we can do, even if it’s unpalatable.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that we never had as many trees than now in the whole human history. Lack of trees are not the main problem (in terms of regenerating CO2 to O2. Killing ecosystem is another matter though). Nuclear energy would be the fastest way to cut emissions despite the risk and waiting for the fusion as the only solution. Anyway there is many other things like aviation (will not be solved in 30 years) that will keep increasing) and mostly meat consumption and specially, human birth rate

Oh, and we are fecked, accept it
 
Maagge said:
Wait, what's wrong with hydro?
I'd also hold on to nuclear for the foreseeable.

But it is as they say, we haven't replaced anything when we discovered new energy sources we just added it to our consumption.
Click to expand...

Methane byproduct mostly and of course all that concrete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.