Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

In some positive news:
Reaching net zero carbon emissions in the UK is likely to be much easier and cheaper than previously thought, and can be designed in such a way as to quickly improve the lives of millions of people, a senior adviser to the government has said. Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the UK’s independent statutory adviser, said costs had come down rapidly in recent years, and past estimates that moving to a low-carbon economy would cut trillions from GDP were wrong.

“Overall, the cost is surprisingly low – it’s cheaper than even we thought last year when we made our assessments. Net zero is relatively low-cost across the economy,” he said. “But that rests on action now. You can’t sit on your hands and imagine it’s just going to get cheaper by magic.”
Click to expand...
From https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-cheaper-than-we-thought-says-climate-adviser

The City of Ottawa also released its own study about a month ago, indicating that going net-zero would cost the city billions of dollars - but would actually save the city even more billions:
The new target calls for the wider community to eventually reduce emissions so that 30 years from now they are 100 per cent below 2012 levels, or "net zero." Getting there would take major retrofits of buildings and homes, and a rethink of how they're heated and cooled. It would also require congestion charges and car-free zones, and would assume all new vehicles are electric.

After four years of work on what's known as the city's "energy evolution" plan, staff have now produced a final strategy and calculated such a vision would cost $57.4 billion, or $31.8 billion in today's dollars. But the savings of those more efficient buildings and electric cars would start to offset the costs by 2032, staff report, so that by 2050, Ottawa as a whole would have saved $28.4 billion, or $2.7 billion in 2020 dollars.
Click to expand...
From https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/otta...-emissions-by-2050-to-cost-billions-1.5765596

So there are really no arguments left against decisive action. But watch nothing meaningful happen for another decade while politicians keep talking about the cost. (I did say positive news at the start though!)
 
All the talking, without any actual action. All these worthless agreements such as Paris and Kyoto.

Talk about talking yourself to death.
 
GenZRed said:
All the talking, without any actual action. All these worthless agreements such as Paris and Kyoto.

Talk about talking yourself to death.
Click to expand...
Without the USA and China changing their tune and that quickly nothing will happen.

co2-emissions-per-country-chart.jpg


https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
 
arthurka said:
Without the USA and China changing their tune and that quickly nothing will happen.

co2-emissions-per-country-chart.jpg


https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
Click to expand...

China's rise in emissions per capita plateaued about a decade ago and is reversing these days, not much different to the UK now. The US have consistently been lowering there's over the past couple of decades although still way too high. It's India that's likely to counteract any efforts.

I'm not a fan of pointing the finger and saying there's no point reducing our emissions per capita because another country has more people. Every country just needs to get to a sustainable level on a per capita basis.

More so it's the already developed countries that have caused this issue and continue to have the highest per capita impact. Those countries need to do more rather than asking developing nations to stall their own efforts to lift populations out of poverty.
 
OleBoiii said:
Click to expand...


This is exactly the problem, it won´t change if the richer countries don´t lead the way and help developing alternatives for the poorer countries to use.
China will need to change this soon they are chocking in smog half of year hence their investment in greener alternatives lately.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

Plus they have seen a investment opportunity in green energy and will probably own a huge stake in the worlds green energy in the future.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/china-clean-energy-technology-winning-sell/


Smores said:
China's rise in emissions per capita plateaued about a decade ago and is reversing these days, not much different to the UK now. The US have consistently been lowering there's over the past couple of decades although still way too high. It's India that's likely to counteract any efforts.

I'm not a fan of pointing the finger and saying there's no point reducing our emissions per capita because another country has more people. Every country just needs to get to a sustainable level on a per capita basis.

More so it's the already developed countries that have caused this issue and continue to have the highest per capita impact. Those countries need to do more rather than asking developing nations to stall their own efforts to lift populations out of poverty.
Click to expand...

China has said they will reach their peak in 2030 and will be neutral in 2060, the problem lies that the big nations will need lead the way for all in the future and if they manage to help the developing world changing to alternatives this wouldn´t be an issue.

The grip that the fossil fuel industry has on the USA is still solid as ever and it won´t change there until there is a system reboot there. This lead in wealth and prosperity that the developed world has built on past burning of fossil fuel has to be the foundation and platform for the developing world to build their future on. I for one have more faith in the Chinese to fix their issues quickly than the Americans as they see the investment opportunities of the future to be entwined into the development and manufacturing of green energy.

Transportation is something that needs to be addressed even if it only counts for 15% of total emissions and after watching the film Who killed the electric car my mind wanders to where would battery technology be today?
If they would have continued to produce them instead of making the Hummer and giving in to big money (Fossil fuel industry) we would be light years ahead of our current battery tech compared today.
Just see the impact Tesla has made in 10 years.



Plus this is very interesting to watch :

 
Does anyone know if there is data on per-capita power consumption in various countries? Would be interesting to see that in comparison to emissions. I feel that as manufacturing has moved away from the west to (mainly) China, that should be reflected in the both figures, so you would expect to see decline since the 90s in western emissions, but what China is attempting (reducing emissions while being the world's factory) is probably unprecedented.
 
berbatrick said:
Does anyone know if there is data on per-capita power consumption in various countries? Would be interesting to see that in comparison to emissions. I feel that as manufacturing has moved away from the west to (mainly) China, that should be reflected in the both figures, so you would expect to see decline since the 90s in western emissions, but what China is attempting (reducing emissions while being the world's factory) is probably unprecedented.
Click to expand...
https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2020&dst=CO2pc
 
Humans waging a suicidal war on nature. So says the Secretary General of the UN.
And he is absolutely correct when he also says that nature will bite back and is doing exactly that.
All this bullsh1t about saving the planet...
Nature will do that by itself, if only we would work with it rather than work against it.

It is down to each and everyone of us to embrace nature. After all, without nature, none of us would be here.
 
Buster15 said:
Humans waging a suicidal war on nature. So says the Secretary General of the UN.
And he is absolutely correct when he also says that nature will bite back and is doing exactly that.
All this bullsh1t about saving the planet...
Nature will do that by itself, if only we would work with it rather than work against it.

It is down to each and everyone of us to embrace nature. After all, without nature, none of us would be here.
Click to expand...
As much as I personally agree with the idea that we should have more respect for nature, that's not an argument I would use to convince people that climate change must be fought. It's like saying that we are ruining the earth: that's just a matter of perspective. We are ruining the earth the way we or most people like it, but the earth as a planet will 'live on''. We're not blowing it up, we're 'just' influencing some of its regulatory processes in a way that influences balances of life and will lead to a new balance - but that new balance will include an earth with plenty of life. (Except if we somehow screw up to the point that the atmosphere disappears entirely and radiation from space will destroy all life.)

Again, I think that's all terrible and we should do better, but I don't think it's an argument that will influence the naysayers. For them, I think we should rather be focusing on the enormous human and financial impact climate change will have. If sea levels will rise as predicted, entire coastal and delta areas will disappear or become inhabitable. This will affect countless people (for a start, apparently over 200 million people live in coastal areas that are less than 5m above sea level), and dealing with their displacement, paying for water defence infrastructure, and so on will have an unimaginable financial impact. I think that argument will be much more impactful for denialists.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Did anyone else catch this little dystopian gem?

Coal mine go-ahead 'undermines climate summit'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55721919
Click to expand...
But he said ministers decided to allow the pit because it will produce coking coal for steel-making, which otherwise would have to be imported.
Click to expand...

so as things like FRP are not ready to fully replace steel in construction we need steel

so we either import steel from china (where it is made with more emissions)

Or we make the steel here... and if we make it here I'm pretty sure the CO2 emissions are the same if we burn domestic or international coal... but there is less associated transport CO2 - the H&S standards are higher and it creates jobs in the UK economy

To be honest I think its probably the correct environmental and economic decision based on those factors - at least in the short term ... though long term its probably a shit financial investment for somebody as FRP will probably have replaced steel in many industries over the lifetime of the pit
 
sun_tzu said:
so as things like FRP are not ready to fully replace steel in construction we need steel

so we either import steel from china (where it is made with more emissions)

Or we make the steel here... and if we make it here I'm pretty sure the CO2 emissions are the same if we burn domestic or international coal... but there is less associated transport CO2 - the H&S standards are higher and it creates jobs in the UK economy

To be honest I think its probably the correct environmental and economic decision based on those factors - at least in the short term ... though long term its probably a shit financial investment for somebody as FRP will probably have replaced steel in many industries over the lifetime of the pit
Click to expand...

What's FRP?
 
Jippy said:
It seems our shite weather really does have some benefits that are finally being harnessed in a meaningful way. Over half the UK's electricity was from wind power on Boxing Day.

Storm Bella helps Great Britain set new record for wind power generation

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ps-uk-record-wind-power-generation-boxing-day
Click to expand...

Yes, only related in terms of renewable energy sources but I find it bizarre that new builds aren't fitted with solar panels as standard, with ground sourced heat pumps servicing entire estates for heating. Obviously it's more expensive to do that, but the cost gets passed on to the home-buyers, as reduced or zero energy bills adds value to the property. One imagines the real reason this doesn't happen is it would put the energy companies who rip us off out of business.
 
That'sHernandez said:
What's FRP?
Click to expand...
Fibre reinforced plastics ... we are starting to use it a lot more where we used structural steel in the past... but I'd guess we are 20 years away from being able to replace big steel beems ... id say approx 1 in 3 small bridges (cycle / pedestrian) in parts of Europe are now commissioned in frp... thing uk will be a couple of years lagging but within a decade it will be the norm for small beams
 
That'sHernandez said:
Yes, only related in terms of renewable energy sources but I find it bizarre that new builds aren't fitted with solar panels as standard, with ground sourced heat pumps servicing entire estates for heating. Obviously it's more expensive to do that, but the cost gets passed on to the home-buyers, as reduced or zero energy bills adds value to the property. One imagines the real reason this doesn't happen is it would put the energy companies who rip us off out of business.
Click to expand...

I think gas heating is banned from 2025 for new builds

As for the solar i think for a lot of people buying a new home they would be put off by the additional cost it would bring if they only plan to be in the house for a few years before moving on... it certainly takes a number of years to pay for its self so unless its fully government subsidised it probably would be a not insignificant burden on new home buyers - especially in the starter home market if people plan to move to a bigger house in a short period of time.

As for the government subsidising that I guess its a possibility but probabky an expensive one and perhaps not the most efficient way... subsidised insulation on old homes etc might be better and perhaps using swathes of mod land for large solar farms which tend to give better output due to scale (plus replacing them in 20 years with new panels is probably far more efficient than climbing on everybody's roof?)
 
sun_tzu said:
I think gas heating is banned from 2025 for new builds

As for the solar i think for a lot of people buying a new home they would be put off by the additional cost it would bring if they only plan to be in the house for a few years before moving on... it certainly takes a number of years to pay for its self so unless its fully government subsidised it probably would be a not insignificant burden on new home buyers - especially in the starter home market if people plan to move to a bigger house in a short period of time.

As for the government subsidising that I guess its a possibility but probabky an expensive one and perhaps not the most efficient way... subsidised insulation on old homes etc might be better and perhaps using swathes of mod land for large solar farms which tend to give better output due to scale (plus replacing them in 20 years with new panels is probably far more efficient than climbing on everybody's roof?)
Click to expand...

I would assume the cost of the panels would be included in the price of the house? I don’t know much about solar panel production costs but my assumption would also be that economies of scale would dictate a reduction in cost of solar panels if every new property had to have them, which in turn means any future replacement would be cheaper?
 
That'sHernandez said:
I would assume the cost of the panels would be included in the price of the house? I don’t know much about solar panel production costs but my assumption would also be that economies of scale would dictate a reduction in cost of solar panels if every new property had to have them, which in turn means any future replacement would be cheaper?
Click to expand...

If they are part of the building regulations then yes, should be included in the building costs.
My understanding is that the panels themselves are relatively inexpensive. But they need additional electronics to convert the electricity supply such that it can be fed back into the grid.
That is why retro fit is more expensive than new build.
 
Buster15 said:
If they are part of the building regulations then yes, should be included in the building costs.
My understanding is that the panels themselves are relatively inexpensive. But they need additional electronics to convert the electricity supply such that it can be fed back into the grid.
That is why retro fit is more expensive than new build.
Click to expand...

But if you're building the house specifically to have them, there's no retrofit required and they're already attached to the grid, right? It seems an absolute no-brainer to me...
 
That'sHernandez said:
But if you're building the house specifically to have them, there's no retrofit required and they're already attached to the grid, right? It seems an absolute no-brainer to me...
Click to expand...

On a new build, yes of course it does. Quite agree.
 
Atlantic Ocean circulation at weakest in a millennium, say scientists
Decline in system underpinning Gulf Stream could lead to more extreme weather in Europe and higher sea levels on US east coast
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ion-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists

To quote the key bit (more detail in the article):
The Atlantic Ocean circulation that underpins the Gulf Stream, the weather system that brings warm and mild weather to Europe, is at its weakest in more than a millennium, and climate breakdown is the probable cause, according to new data. Further weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could result in more storms battering the UK, more intense winters and an increase in damaging heatwaves and droughts across Europe. Scientists predict that the AMOC will weaken further if global heating continues, and could reduce by about 34% to 45% by the end of this century, which could bring us close to a “tipping point” at which the system could become irrevocably unstable. A weakened Gulf Stream would also raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast of the US, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Click to expand...
 
Cheimoon said:
Atlantic Ocean circulation at weakest in a millennium, say scientists
Decline in system underpinning Gulf Stream could lead to more extreme weather in Europe and higher sea levels on US east coast
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ion-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists

To quote the key bit (more detail in the article):
Click to expand...

I'm sure this was the plot to a big budget disaster movie. A film that many critics slammed for being hilariously implausible and a load of tree huggers psuedo science mumbo jumbo.

Admittedly lots of TDAT was Hollywood bollocks, but it seems the key climate change worry the plot centres around could have been closer than many thought.
 
langster said:
I'm sure this was the plot to a big budget disaster movie. A film that many critics slammed for being hilariously implausible and a load of tree huggers psuedo science mumbo jumbo.

Admittedly lots of TDAT was Hollywood bollocks, but it seems the key climate change worry the plot centres around could have been closer than many thought.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know,The Day after Tomorrow. I have to think about it every time the gulf stream is mentioned somewhere. To be fair though, it really is a complete and utter mess scientifically. (Apart from how you might like it as a film. :D ) The only 'useful' point in there is that the gulf stream is very important for life as we know it in Europe and North America.

It's actually my 'favorite' climate change factoid, that global warming might cause colder extremes in winter in the northern hemisphere (because the polar jet stream can't contain the arctic cold as well), and might cause a cooldown in Europe if the gulf stream is messed up.
 
Record number of Swedes going through the ice in the past days, 6 occurrences in 24 hours. All experienced ice folk.
Mental as it was cold as feck in February but what people failed to realise was that it was so warm until February that there was too much warm water in the lakes when the cold snap came, couple that with the temperatures quickly rising so high after the cold snap (+16 in Kalmar, a Feb record) and ice would that usually be rock solid for weeks and months, in any weather after a few weeks of -10 and below, is in fact, weak as piss ice.

Funny though, cause plenty of people were using the cold snap after a few years of ridiculously warm winters as “proof” that climate change is made up and the old “see, it’s weather innit, some times it’s hotter, sometimes colder”.
Some will never wake up until parts of the World are in ruins.
 
Cheimoon said:
Yeah, I know,The Day after Tomorrow. I have to think about it every time the gulf stream is mentioned somewhere. To be fair though, it really is a complete and utter mess scientifically. (Apart from how you might like it as a film. :D ) The only 'useful' point in there is that the gulf stream is very important for life as we know it in Europe and North America.

It's actually my 'favorite' climate change factoid, that global warming might cause colder extremes in winter in the northern hemisphere (because the polar jet stream can't contain the arctic cold as well), and might cause a cooldown in Europe if the gulf stream is messed up.
Click to expand...


I think the film helped explain why climate change is used as a description over global warming more because the denyers and many who don't understand the science use the cooling as a stick to beat it with.

The science is a crock of shit as you say, although I think Geostorm beats it in the bullshit stakes. I do enjoy disaster movies though and TDAT was a great watch on the big screen.
 
langster said:
I think the film helped explain why climate change is used as a description over global warming more because the denyers and many who don't understand the science use the cooling as a stick to beat it with.

The science is a crock of shit as you say, although I think Geostorm beats it in the bullshit stakes. I do enjoy disaster movies though and TDAT was a great watch on the big screen.
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah, Geostorm - I missed that when it was briefly available on Netflix over here.

You're right, it's an interesting perspective in that sense, as most people take any cooling to mean that climate change is a hoax. (See @Regulus Arcturus Black's post just above!) I would be surprised if that was anyone's takeaway from TDAT though; it doesn't really make you feel like you're learning something about climate change. :) Happy if it did teach some people something though!
 
Cheimoon said:
Ah, yeah, Geostorm - I missed that when it was briefly available on Netflix over here.

You're right, it's an interesting perspective in that sense, as most people take any cooling to mean that climate change is a hoax. (See @Regulus Arcturus Black's post just above!) I would be surprised if that was anyone's takeaway from TDAT though; it doesn't really make you feel like you're learning something about climate change. :) Happy if it did teach some people something though!
Click to expand...

No it definitely doesn't feel like you are learning anything. Mind you, I don't think any disaster movie does. Geostorm certainly doesn't that's for sure. Even more implausible and over the top than TDAT and 2012 put together :lol:
 
langster said:
No it definitely doesn't feel like you are learning anything. Mind you, I don't think any disaster movie does. Geostorm certainly doesn't that's for sure. Even more implausible and over the top than TDAT and 2012 put together :lol:
Click to expand...
You made me really curious about that one now! :lol:
 
Cheimoon said:
Yeah, I know,The Day after Tomorrow. I have to think about it every time the gulf stream is mentioned somewhere. To be fair though, it really is a complete and utter mess scientifically. (Apart from how you might like it as a film. :D ) The only 'useful' point in there is that the gulf stream is very important for life as we know it in Europe and North America.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it postulated that that played a role in one (or more?) extinction event? Maybe not specifically the Gulf Stream as it is composed today perhaps, but it seems like I ran across it during my random lockdown study adventures.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Isn’t it postulated that that played a role in one (or more?) extinction event? Maybe not specifically the Gulf Stream as it is composed today perhaps, but it seems like I ran across it during my random lockdown study adventures.
Click to expand...
I don't remember that specifically, but I did read something about the development of certain properties of ocean water being key to developments in global climate. I don't remember specific details though (I think it had something to do with how the planet dips in and out of ice ages), and I still don't remember if that ocean water stuff was just an indicator of planetary developments or a driver. Maybe unrelated?
 
Cheimoon said:
I don't remember that specifically, but I did read something about the development of certain properties of ocean water being key to developments in global climate. I don't remember specific details though (I think it had something to do with how the planet dips in and out of ice ages), and I still don't remember if that ocean water stuff was just an indicator of planetary developments or a driver. Maybe unrelated?
Click to expand...
I think I’m thinking of the Younger Dryas, which was a period severe cooling following the melting of North American Glazers after what had been a period of global warming. There might have been such a massive injection of freshwater that it fecked up the normal current cycles of the Atlantic and reversed the warming trend.

So not one of the mass extinction events, and I’m not sure they’re sure if that’s what caused it.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I think I’m thinking of the Younger Dryas, which was a period severe cooling following the melting of North American Glazers after what had been a period of global warming. There might have been such a massive injection of freshwater that it fecked up the normal current cycles of the Atlantic and reversed the warming trend.

So not one of the mass extinction events, and I’m not sure they’re sure if that’s what caused it.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lot of uncertainty in our conversation here! :lol:
 
From today's Nature Briefing:
Bottom trawling carbon exceeds air travel
A huge amount of carbon stored at the bottom of the ocean is released every year as massive nets are dragged along the sea bed, whirling up marine sediment. Scientists estimate that CO2 emissions from bottom trawling amount to one billion tonnes per year on average — exceeding carbon emissions from global air travel. The bulk — more than 750 million tonnes — comes from trawling activities in coastal waters in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of China, followed by the EEZs of Russia, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark and France. Expanding protected areas, including in heavily-trawled national waters, could greatly reduce the industry’s carbon footprint. At a biodiversity conference later this year, nations will discuss plans to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030. “One notable priority for conservation is Antarctica, which currently has little protection,” says ecologist David Mouillot.

The Guardian | 4 min read
Reference: Nature paper
Click to expand...
 
Cheimoon said:
From today's Nature Briefing:
Click to expand...

It sounds similar to the issue we're going to have when some of the permafrost thaws in that it is exposing previously unreleased carbon. More carbon could be released by it thawing than has been released by humans in entirety so far is what estimations suggest.
 
Balljy said:
It sounds similar to the issue we're going to have when some of the permafrost thaws in that it is exposing previously unreleased carbon. More carbon could be released by it thawing than has been released by humans in entirety so far is what estimations suggest.
Click to expand...
Not just CO2, but tremendous amounts of methane as well which is every bit as worrisome in the near-term.
 
Balljy said:
It sounds similar to the issue we're going to have when some of the permafrost thaws in that it is exposing previously unreleased carbon. More carbon could be released by it thawing than has been released by humans in entirety so far is what estimations suggest.
Click to expand...
If we let it get so far that permafrost starts seriously thawing, then we're truly fecked. That's not going to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, but methane, with has a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2 - before dissolving into CO2 through a reaction with ozone. If permafrost thawing becomes back, we have likely triggered a feedback loop, in which climate change will get worse all by itself. NOT good...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.