Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58174111

Very interesting article about Methane CH4 and relatively low risk/cost methods of dealing with this highly damaging greenhouse gas.
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but that article seems a bit too positive. To get past this problem, you have to conceive a realistic option to power giant energy consuming places such as the northeast US seaboard which has moved on from coal but still relies on methane. And that’s far from the only region.

Some of the improvements required are unrealistic given the enormous cost to update the infrastructure; no one wants to foot that bill. The Marcellus shale powering the NE and the Eagleford powering Texas’ chemicals industries have tied the US down so tightly that no politician will be able to untangle them any time soon, and that’s before we even get to the methane release from oil production.
 
Some questions for the brainiacs of the forum?

I know that there is research to find a technology that fixates carbon from the atmosphere. Is that feasible in 10-15 years? if so, would that solve the climate emergency if escalate it properly? would need to be combined with another technology?

Or there is something that should be researched that would be more useful? and I mean technology that could revert. Because it seems that we are at a point of no return and we will not renounce to the current production system, so I believe that only a technology that would revert what we are doing would be acceptable for this society
 
Some questions for the brainiacs of the forum?

I know that there is research to find a technology that fixates carbon from the atmosphere. Is that feasible in 10-15 years? if so, would that solve the climate emergency if escalate it properly? would need to be combined with another technology?

Or there is something that should be researched that would be more useful? and I mean technology that could revert. Because it seems that we are at a point of no return and we will not renounce to the current production system, so I believe that only a technology that would revert what we are doing would be acceptable for this society
We don’t need technology to take carbon out the atmosphere, we need trees.
 
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but that article seems a bit too positive. To get past this problem, you have to conceive a realistic option to power giant energy consuming places such as the northeast US seaboard which has moved on from coal but still relies on methane. And that’s far from the only region.

Some of the improvements required are unrealistic given the enormous cost to update the infrastructure; no one wants to foot that bill. The Marcellus shale powering the NE and the Eagleford powering Texas’ chemicals industries have tied the US down so tightly that no politician will be able to untangle them any time soon, and that’s before we even get to the methane release from oil production.

To be honest, I felt like that as well. But Methane is such a bad greenhouse gas, it is reasonable for that to be tackled individually.
 
We don’t need technology to take carbon out the atmosphere, we need trees.

As usual, spot on. Until humans, nature created our ideal (not the Bristolian idea but with an L at the end) atmospheric conditions. And every second of the day, it is trying to continue doing that. It is humanity which is stopping it.
 
Some questions for the brainiacs of the forum?

I know that there is research to find a technology that fixates carbon from the atmosphere. Is that feasible in 10-15 years? if so, would that solve the climate emergency if escalate it properly? would need to be combined with another technology?

Or there is something that should be researched that would be more useful? and I mean technology that could revert. Because it seems that we are at a point of no return and we will not renounce to the current production system, so I believe that only a technology that would revert what we are doing would be acceptable for this society

CCS as a technology is still some way off, because it is not yet sufficiently developed to be energy positive instead of negative.

Like all things, there is (as yet) no magic bullet. We are going to have to do it, at least initially, the hard way. And that is the problem.
In my view, the political will and that of the general public is starting to accept that things will have to change.
But nothing like fast and deep enough to achieve the target of not greater than + 1.5C. In many places, that has already been exceeded by a factor of at least 2.
The solutions are, to a great extent there. But it is getting the global common purpose that is the issue; even though we don't have an option.
 
Some questions for the brainiacs of the forum?

I know that there is research to find a technology that fixates carbon from the atmosphere. Is that feasible in 10-15 years? if so, would that solve the climate emergency if escalate it properly? would need to be combined with another technology?

Or there is something that should be researched that would be more useful? and I mean technology that could revert. Because it seems that we are at a point of no return and we will not renounce to the current production system, so I believe that only a technology that would revert what we are doing would be acceptable for this society
This is from two years ago but might be interesting:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/carbon-capture-faq-1.5250140
 
Some questions for the brainiacs of the forum?

I know that there is research to find a technology that fixates carbon from the atmosphere. Is that feasible in 10-15 years? if so, would that solve the climate emergency if escalate it properly? would need to be combined with another technology?

Or there is something that should be researched that would be more useful? and I mean technology that could revert. Because it seems that we are at a point of no return and we will not renounce to the current production system, so I believe that only a technology that would revert what we are doing would be acceptable for this society

On the topic of future technologies, there have been several proposals for so-called geoengineering, large scale projects to counteract some aspect of global warming. It's feasible, but it's also dangerous, particularly if it's used as an excuse to keep pumping out greenhouse gasses. We might find ourselves in a situation where if anything goes wrong we could have basically doomed humanity forever.

Kurzgesagt did a good video on it.

 
Last edited:
We don’t need technology to take carbon out the atmosphere, we need trees.

As far as i understand, we never had as much trees since 2000 years. Way ahead than thr medieval age. Also, marine algae has even a bigger impact on the fixation than the co2.

Having more trees is not the solution as far as i know
 
As far as i understand, we never had as much trees since 2000 years. Way ahead than thr medieval age. Also, marine algae has even a bigger impact on the fixation than the co2.

Having more trees is not the solution as far as i know

It's more like 100 years. There were definitely more trees during the middle ages.
 
As far as i understand, we never had as much trees since 2000 years. Way ahead than thr medieval age. Also, marine algae has even a bigger impact on the fixation than the co2.

Having more trees is not the solution as far as i know
Do you have a source for that? Cause based on what I know, I'd be rather with @nimic on this:
It's more like 100 years. There were definitely more trees during the middle ages.
 
Do you have a source for that? Cause based on what I know, I'd be rather with @nimic on this:


You are are both right. My memory failed me and I was quite eurocentric. More than 100 years (of course we will not enter to biodiversity) in the entire world and it when all the climate change process started to accelerate and more since the medieval age but only in europe, that of course, is not the world

In this study you can see that around 1200, the forest coverage in europe was below the 40% and it drops to 25% on 1300 and 15% on the 1800

https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

Currently the european forest coverage is 42%

But back to my point. Yes, trees helps and all but they are not the main CO2 fixers (marine plants) and we never had more than 100 years ago and carbon still raise, so as we will not stop burning fossils anytime soon, the only salvation is to come up with a technological solution to:

a) fixate the carbon that we generate
b) to cool down the temperature to acceptable levels


Conclusion: we are screwed
 
If all those wankers with AstroTurfed gardens would have really grass. God I hate them.
Grass lawns are terrible for the environment in many cases. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but between exhaustion of fresh water resources and air pollution from lawn management it is often a net negative in the end.

Natural surfaces are the way forward.
 
You are are both right. My memory failed me and I was quite eurocentric. More than 100 years (of course we will not enter to biodiversity) in the entire world and it when all the climate change process started to accelerate and more since the medieval age but only in europe, that of course, is not the world

In this study you can see that around 1200, the forest coverage in europe was below the 40% and it drops to 25% on 1300 and 15% on the 1800

https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

Currently the european forest coverage is 42%

But back to my point. Yes, trees helps and all but they are not the main CO2 fixers (marine plants) and we never had more than 100 years ago and carbon still raise, so as we will not stop burning fossils anytime soon, the only salvation is to come up with a technological solution to:

a) fixate the carbon that we generate
b) to cool down the temperature to acceptable levels


Conclusion: we are screwed

Sadly I do agree with this.
 
Grass lawns are terrible for the environment in many cases. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but between exhaustion of fresh water resources and air pollution from lawn management it is often a net negative in the end.

Natural surfaces are the way forward.

Yeah, I was reading this the other day:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ot-death-metal-irish-baron-rewilds-his-estate

My fiancee and I really would like to do a wild garden, no idea how you do it though!
 
You are are both right. My memory failed me and I was quite eurocentric. More than 100 years (of course we will not enter to biodiversity) in the entire world and it when all the climate change process started to accelerate and more since the medieval age but only in europe, that of course, is not the world

In this study you can see that around 1200, the forest coverage in europe was below the 40% and it drops to 25% on 1300 and 15% on the 1800

https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

Currently the european forest coverage is 42%

But back to my point. Yes, trees helps and all but they are not the main CO2 fixers (marine plants) and we never had more than 100 years ago and carbon still raise, so as we will not stop burning fossils anytime soon, the only salvation is to come up with a technological solution to:

a) fixate the carbon that we generate
b) to cool down the temperature to acceptable levels


Conclusion: we are screwed
Yep, short and sweet (well, sour).

While we're on the topic of forests, I was reading recently that building more with wood isn't a great solution either in the long term. Obviously, trees capture CO2 when growing, but the process of planting, harvesting, and processing them still produces more CO2 than what a planted tree can capture in the few decades that it gets to grow. That's better that using concrete for everything, of course, which doesn't capture any CO2 along the way; but it still results in a negative CO2 balance altogether. (If I'm not mistaken.)
 
Grass lawns are terrible for the environment in many cases. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but between exhaustion of fresh water resources and air pollution from lawn management it is often a net negative in the end.

Natural surfaces are the way forward.
Yeah, I was reading this the other day:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ot-death-metal-irish-baron-rewilds-his-estate

My fiancee and I really would like to do a wild garden, no idea how you do it though!
Exactly right! This has been on my mind a lot as well the past few years. Having a grass lawn kinda 'goes against nature', as monocultural patches just aren't sustainable without intervention (fertiziler, watering) in the long-term. For example, grass uses nitrogen from the soil, so you'd need to grow it alongside nitrogen-fixing plants. I have been trying to do better with that; I have sown white clover (a nitrogen-fixing plant) in a corner of my terrain now, to see how that does.

I have also been trying to let 'weeds' grow more. (I am putting that in apostrophes, as there is nothing wrong with most 'weeds'; the word just refers to plants we don't want.) That's not great though, as some species get dominant easily and are not necessarily nice to see or to walk on - and I do want my kids to be able to play outside barefeet. That's also why a creeping thyme lawn doesn't work for me: thyme is not soft to walk on, and bees and others get attracted to its flowers. (It's otherwise a great solution to grass lawns though, and much prettier.) And that's also why I'm not letting my garden basically go nuts, as the grass and plants get too tall.

All the same, the clover+grass solution should hopefully work well until my kids are old enough and I can convert most of the grass to patches of plants - which is the really sustainable solution. I have already been looking into local plants and flowers (i.e., that can handle our usual summer and winter conditions) that we can plant. Asclepias (milkweed) is definitely going to be a part of that, as it's nice-looking, gets big, and the only source of food that monarch butterflies will use.

Anyway, to get away from the rambling a little: I think that's what they mean by a wild garden. Get a lot of local plants, and let them take over your garden. They'll reseed themselves, and you'll have a full and diverse and sustainable ground cover within years. Garden centres should be able to help making the right choices, but if you're brave, you could also try bringing in plants you see thriving and flowering along roads. Obviously, they are the kind that do great without receiving any gardening care. ('Brave', because some of those might also be invasive spieces that will take over; and some plans might be painful to touch or (somewhat) toxic.)

Oh, btw, another reason to get rid of huge grass lawns: Japanese beetles! (link) It's a kind of scarab that's indigenous to Japan, and is not a pest there because it has natural predators and there isn't as much grass surface where it can hatch its eggs; but here in eastern North America, it's the inverse on both counts and those scarabs are a right pain; they destroy plans outright if you don't go hunt for them regularly. (Catch them and put them in soapy water; it's hard to kill them in any other way, and believe me, once you see two dozen sitting on a rose flower and destroy it entirely, you want to kill them!)

Yeah, as you can tell, this is all on my mind a lot. :lol: It's overall less about climate change than general sustainability though.
 
You are are both right. My memory failed me and I was quite eurocentric. More than 100 years (of course we will not enter to biodiversity) in the entire world and it when all the climate change process started to accelerate and more since the medieval age but only in europe, that of course, is not the world

In this study you can see that around 1200, the forest coverage in europe was below the 40% and it drops to 25% on 1300 and 15% on the 1800

https://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimmermann/papers/QuatSciRev_Kaplan_2009.pdf

Currently the european forest coverage is 42%

But back to my point. Yes, trees helps and all but they are not the main CO2 fixers (marine plants) and we never had more than 100 years ago and carbon still raise, so as we will not stop burning fossils anytime soon, the only salvation is to come up with a technological solution to:

a) fixate the carbon that we generate
b) to cool down the temperature to acceptable levels


Conclusion: we are screwed
You’re brushing (heh) up against something I enjoyed…well was horrified by might be more apt, researching during downtime from the pandemic. Old growth forest is vitally important; you cannot regrow it within a human lifespan. There is just so much that goes into it between the fungi, microbes, native tree species, etc.

Planting fast growing trees like eucalyptus doesn’t solve it because if they’re not native the carbon storage is significantly diminished. We can’t plant a billion or trillion trees to get out of this mess.
 
You’re brushing (heh) up against something I enjoyed…well was horrified by might be more apt, researching during downtime from the pandemic. Old growth forest is vitally important; you cannot regrow it within a human lifespan. There is just so much that goes into it between the fungi, microbes, native tree species, etc.

Planting fast growing trees like eucalyptus doesn’t solve it because if they’re not native the carbon storage is significantly diminished. We can’t plant a billion or trillion trees to get out of this mess.
There's some amazing new (or: not that new but now commonly accepted) research on that actually, the symbiosis between plants in the forest, how more mature trees 'communicate' (in a way) with younger ones, etc. You're right, a replanted forest will take very long to get there, and a wood production forest obviously never will.
 
You’re brushing (heh) up against something I enjoyed…well was horrified by might be more apt, researching during downtime from the pandemic. Old growth forest is vitally important; you cannot regrow it within a human lifespan. There is just so much that goes into it between the fungi, microbes, native tree species, etc.

Planting fast growing trees like eucalyptus doesn’t solve it because if they’re not native the carbon storage is significantly diminished. We can’t plant a billion or trillion trees to get out of this mess.

As i said, i am not talking biodiversity that is obviously being lost as we speak...and now...and now...etc. and old forest takes hundreds of years, but a tree is a tree and photosynthesis is photosynthesis and yes, there is much more that adds up but a 42% of young none divers forest in europe, is most likely to fix more carbon than 15% old forest like in the 1800s. The same can be told for the rest of the world.

And again, the big player is marine plants, not trees
 
Grass lawns are terrible for the environment in many cases. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but between exhaustion of fresh water resources and air pollution from lawn management it is often a net negative in the end.

Natural surfaces are the way forward.

That may be true. However, we have a large back lawn and the number of birds that come into the garden searching for food, especially during the nesting period is highly important.
We also have no fencing. Instead a range of bushes, most of which have berries in the autumn and fruit trees.

The removal of CO2 is of vital importance. But so is biodiversity. Insects for pollination and grubs on which birds rely. Hazel trees on which squirrels rely on.
 
That's nice. Usually it's the other way round: here are a couple of meat options, and here is your one vegetarian option. If the latter happens to be something you don't like, then too bad.

In the same way, we got a fastfood burger at A&W while on the road a couple of weeks ago and I didn't want to have a big chunk of meat. They've got a huge range of meat burgers; but my only vegetarian option was their 'Beyond Meat' burger, with a specific set of ingredients. Not into that today? Too bad again! In a place like that, why can't I just choose any burger on their list, and get the option to replace the meat (patty and bacon) with vegetarian alternatives?

I'm sure there are a lot of people like me, who would be totally ready to buy more vegetarian food in restaurants, but aren't going to chance their routines to get it. (I anyway have no idea where I would have found a place with more vegetarian choice along that highway.) Or in the case of the students: can't afford getting food at the fancy places with better vegetarian meals that I'm sure exist in Berlin.

So yeah, choice: that's what's required if you want really want to get a lot more people to pick vegetarian options. Good on those Berlin universities.
 
That's nice. Usually it's the other way round: here are a couple of meat options, and here is your one vegetarian option. If the latter happens to be something you don't like, then too bad.

In the same way, we got a fastfood burger at A&W while on the road a couple of weeks ago and I didn't want to have a big chunk of meat. They've got a huge range of meat burgers; but my only vegetarian option was their 'Beyond Meat' burger, with a specific set of ingredients. Not into that today? Too bad again! In a place like that, why can't I just choose any burger on their list, and get the option to replace the meat (patty and bacon) with vegetarian alternatives?

I'm sure there are a lot of people like me, who would be totally ready to buy more vegetarian food in restaurants, but aren't going to chance their routines to get it. (I anyway have no idea where I would have found a place with more vegetarian choice along that highway.) Or in the case of the students: can't afford getting food at the fancy places with better vegetarian meals that I'm sure exist in Berlin.

So yeah, choice: that's what's required if you want really want to get a lot more people to pick vegetarian options. Good on those Berlin universities.

Just like having just the beyond meat burger is not a real choice at A&W this
"...2% fish-based, with a single meat option offered four days a week."

is not a "choice" either.
 
Just like having just the beyond meat burger is not a real choice at A&W this


is not a "choice" either.
Yeah, obviously it takes things to the other extreme; but if they consider that meat consumption is major issue in climate change, then I suppose this makes sense. Although you might as well cut out meat completely when you've taken it this far.
 
Yeah, obviously it takes things to the other extreme; but if they consider that meat consumption is major issue in climate change, then I suppose this makes sense. Although you might as well cut out meat completely when you've taken it this far.

The other interesting thing in that article is that it was a minority of the surveyed student population (46.5% to 53.5%) that identified as vegan/vegetarian. The policy to shift so extremely seems a bit, well, extreme. I think a reduction in options and sourcing from environmentally friendly providers would be a better option. Sure, those meals would then potentially cost more, but then it would be the students choice.
 
The other interesting thing in that article is that it was a minority of the surveyed student population (46.5% to 53.5%) that identified as vegan/vegetarian. The policy to shift so extremely seems a bit, well, extreme. I think a reduction in options and sourcing from environmentally friendly providers would be a better option. Sure, those meals would then potentially cost more, but then it would be the students choice.

47% veg*n is probably among the highest in the world.
India is consistently ~40%. The UK is ~5-10%, and every other country is lower.
Of course, univ=/=country, but that's still a crazy number. Probably no better place in the west to try it.

Don't think it will go well though. Freedom, or the illusion of it, is a big deal, as covid has shown.
...

@WI_Red
With this, and by supporting Biden making sure that gas production stays high, it seems like you're in favour of really making this target as hard andfar as possible?

If you were familiar with cricket, there's a good analogy to use here. (For those who are familiar - it's about Dhoni's approach to run chases).
 
47% veg*n is probably among the highest in the world.
India is consistently ~40%. The UK is ~5-10%, and every other country is lower.
Of course, univ=/=country, but that's still a crazy number. Probably no better place in the west to try it.

Don't think it will go well though. Freedom, or the illusion of it, is a big deal, as covid has shown.
...

@WI_Red
With this, and by supporting Biden making sure that gas production stays high, it seems like you're in favour of really making this target as hard andfar as possible?

If you were familiar with cricket, there's a good analogy to use here. (For those who are familiar - it's about Dhoni's approach to run chases).

WTF are you on about?

Not sure I have ever advocated for high gas production. I think it needs to be reduced, as does all fossil fuel production and consumption. It needs to be reduced in a manner that is not catastrophic to the economy, but it does need to be reduced.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...c-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change

Half a trillion plastic bottles per year now according to the above.

That's nice. Usually it's the other way round: here are a couple of meat options, and here is your one vegetarian option. If the latter happens to be something you don't like, then too bad.

In the same way, we got a fastfood burger at A&W while on the road a couple of weeks ago and I didn't want to have a big chunk of meat. They've got a huge range of meat burgers; but my only vegetarian option was their 'Beyond Meat' burger, with a specific set of ingredients. Not into that today? Too bad again! In a place like that, why can't I just choose any burger on their list, and get the option to replace the meat (patty and bacon) with vegetarian alternatives?

I'm sure there are a lot of people like me, who would be totally ready to buy more vegetarian food in restaurants, but aren't going to chance their routines to get it. (I anyway have no idea where I would have found a place with more vegetarian choice along that highway.) Or in the case of the students: can't afford getting food at the fancy places with better vegetarian meals that I'm sure exist in Berlin.

So yeah, choice: that's what's required if you want really want to get a lot more people to pick vegetarian options. Good on those Berlin universities.

It’s way past time for the leading academic institutions who put out so much of the research to start implementing such ‘drastic’ measures.

As for the students, it would be an interesting message; “if you want to wear the badge of being ‘smart enough’ to attend these institutions, start eating like it.”