Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

nimic said:
Brwned already covered that pretty well, as did Buster.
Click to expand...

Dr. Evil then. In the mean time im taking care of my sick old mother. Whilst doing so i will daydream of a norwegian who doesnt want poor people being lifted out poverty if its energy demands are met by fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
Buster15 said:
Not worthy of comment.
Click to expand...

That is I am afraid true, therefore the 'World going to hell in a hand cart" scenario will happen, because China and the US (in particular) but also all major coal producers and users will guarantee it.

However to even attempt to change things, there has to be a a honest approach to this. @Gehrman, maintains that the Chinese 'rightly' are going to continue to try to lift more of their citizens out of abject poverty and continue to do so using the massively polluting coal-fired power plants; whether that 'rightly' view is upheld and/or the view that in the past many western countries started the pollution and they should pay, really doesn't matter.
What matters is that coal powered energy production has to be stopped, anything else simply amounts 're-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic'.
 
Maticmaker said:
That is I am afraid true, therefore the 'World going to hell in a hand cart" scenario will happen, because China and the US (in particular) but also all major coal producers and users will guarantee it.

However to even attempt to change things, there has to be a a honest approach to this. @Gehrman, maintains that the Chinese 'rightly' are going to continue to try to lift more of their citizens out of abject poverty and continue to do so using the massively polluting coal-fired power plants; whether that 'rightly' view is upheld and/or the view that in the past many western countries started the pollution and they should pay, really doesn't matter.
What matters is that coal powered energy production has to be stopped, anything else simply amounts 're-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic'.
Click to expand...

Depends on what to matters to whom and at what time.
 
Gehrman said:
Depends on what to matters to whom and at what time.
Click to expand...
The point you're making about poverty and developing countries is valid. The answer cannot be continued reliance on fossil fuel for the consequences will surely be felt hardest by those same people. India being an excellent case in point.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
The point you're making about poverty and developing countries is valid. The answer cannot be continued reliance on fossil fuel for the consequences will surely be felt hardest by those same people. India being an excellent case in point.
Click to expand...

What do the indians make of this?
 
Gehrman said:
What do the indians make of this?
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that they're not wholly keen on drought and famine.

The developed World needed to commit to supporting the developing World through climate reparations and technology to achieve what we need to save civilisation as we know it. They did not.
 
I am currently in Delhi, the worst polluted city in the world so I know better than anyone why polluters like coal need to be binned off. But is simply not practical for India to turn off the dependency on coal the next day or even in next 10 years. It is not just about economy but majority of the country will be in chaos if power situation got disrupted without any mitigation.

Only solution is for the developed countries to sponsor technology transfer and building of clean energy generation alternatives in countries like India.
 
crappycraperson said:
I am currently in Delhi, the worst polluted city in the world so I know better than anyone why polluters like coal need to be binned off. But is simply not practical for India to turn off the dependency on coal the next day or even in next 10 years. It is not just about economy but majority of the country will be in chaos if power situation got disputed without any mitigation.

Only solution is for the developed countries to sponsor technology transfer and building of clean energy generation alternatives in countries like India.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I'd imagine that they're not wholly keen on drought and famine.

The developed World needed to commit to supporting the developing World through climate reparations and technology to achieve what we need to save civilisation as we know it. They did not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The fact developed world/west raked it in by polluting the planet to the state today will always be a sticking point for the populace in the emerging nations. The developed world really need to take the lead ans set the example here first. Ban private/charter flights, stop their own coal usage all together, ban petrol/diesel cars by 2025 etc. Their populations' living standard and economy will also be hit but they are still in a position to absorb these kind of shocks, which was somewhat proven during the pandemic also. Sadly the political situation in countries like US, UK means that chances of this happening are zero.
 
Maticmaker said:
That is I am afraid true, therefore the 'World going to hell in a hand cart" scenario will happen, because China and the US (in particular) but also all major coal producers and users will guarantee it.

However to even attempt to change things, there has to be a a honest approach to this. @Gehrman, maintains that the Chinese 'rightly' are going to continue to try to lift more of their citizens out of abject poverty and continue to do so using the massively polluting coal-fired power plants; whether that 'rightly' view is upheld and/or the view that in the past many western countries started the pollution and they should pay, really doesn't matter.
What matters is that coal powered energy production has to be stopped, anything else simply amounts 're-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic'.
Click to expand...

That sounds quite dishonest, though. It also completely ignores the reality that coming to a consensus on key facts is a prerequisite to driving change that requires wide participation. Otherwise politics wouldn't really exist. What you still hold to be an opinion, the people you're asking to change know to be a fact - and like you say, honesty is required to even attempt to change things. How we got into this position plays a big role in what actions we should take to get out of it. Pretending otherwise directly leads to inaction. Developing nations keep saying this but aren't listened to, and then developed nations wonder why developing nations don't participate in the "right way".
 
Brwned said:
That sounds quite dishonest, though. It also completely ignores the reality that coming to a consensus on key facts is a prerequisite to driving change that requires wide participation. Otherwise politics wouldn't really exist. What you still hold to be an opinion, the people you're asking to change know to be a fact - and like you say, honesty is required to even attempt to change things. How we got into this position plays a big role in what actions we should take to get out of it. Pretending otherwise directly leads to inaction. Developing nations keep saying this but aren't listened to, and then developed nations wonder why developing nations don't participate in the "right way".
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything dishonest, both sides of this 'cutting emissions' coin, i.e those who have polluted and those who intend to continue to pollute, hold that they are right, therefore is it going to come down to who blinks first?

There is an argument that could be made that 'politics' are getting in the way of a solution rather than leading to one. In every country, regardless of whether its a democracy or not, the leadership have to decide what measures (to combat climate change) their populace (as well as their economy) will accept and what they won't. Hence because of this often unpalatable truth, nothing ever really gets 'bottomed out,' let alone agreed.

Most of us only really know what we are told about climate change and the requirements to combat it and hence when we are 'sold' something by our leaders, e.g. in the UK one such thing is the roll-out of 'Smart Meters', that after lots of false starts and in some cases high costs of putting things right (in private property) turned out to be anything but Smart, and in truth even when they do work, they do (in reality) little for the consumer but much more for the producer; then public belief in such matters is undermined.

The problem is of course 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Lessons can be learned from past faults and mistakes in the management (or not) of emissions and this can contribute to learning for the future; but also to continue to produce emissions when the effects are known, is sheer folly.
 
crappycraperson said:
Exactly. The fact developed world/west raked it in by polluting the planet to the state today will always be a sticking point for the populace in the emerging nations. The developed world really need to take the lead ans set the example here first. Ban private/charter flights, stop their own coal usage all together, ban petrol/diesel cars by 2025 etc. Their populations' living standard and economy will also be hit but they are still in a position to absorb these kind of shocks, which was somewhat proven during the pandemic also. Sadly the political situation in countries like US, UK means that chances of this happening are zero.
Click to expand...

I think it's simpler than that, the standard transition away from coal is natural gas. There shouldn't be an expectation for developing nations to go from coal to renewables directly because it's just not possible on any great scale.

If all these coal dependent nations suddenly up there natural gas consumption that's going to hit the market and Europe will have to burn more coal so it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Or more likely they'll pay more and then shout at the poorer nations to stop using coal.

The only stats worth looking at is who is increasing their renewables quickest because that's the only true success story here because you can't stop countries growing. India is doing alright on that account and obviously China has more renewable growth year on year than the rest of the world combined.

It's time for certain nations to up their renewables and reduce their own gas usage.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
I think it's simpler than that, the standard transition away from coal is natural gas. There shouldn't be an expectation for developing nations to go from coal to renewables directly because it's just not possible on any great scale.

If all these coal dependent nations suddenly up there natural gas consumption that's going to hit the market and Europe will have to burn more coal so it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Or more likely they'll pay more and then shout at the poorer nations to stop using coal.

The only stats worth looking at is who is increasing their renewables quickest because that's the only true success story here because you can't stop countries growing. India is doing alright on that account and obviously China has more renewable growth year on year than the rest of the world combined.

It's time for certain nations to up their renewables and reduce their own gas usage.
Click to expand...

Yes. Right to the point.
In terms of fossil fuels consumption, in the very short term, we are where we are.
The key issue is as you say, the transition to renewable energy as quickly as is feasible.
I don't have the data. But is the UK not amongst the leading nations in the increase of renewable energy. Given the huge growth in off shore wind power?
 
Some good news in the week of a December tornado outbreak in the US (from the full article on Science):
Science said:
The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world
An important climatic indicator has been misreported by a factor of two

It’s almost a mantra in climate science: The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But that figure, found in scientific studies, advocacy reports, the popular press, and even the 2021 U.N. climate assessment, is incorrect, obscuring the true toll of global warming on the north, a team of climate scientists reports this week. In fact, the researchers say, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not really.
 
The good news: nicer weather and better agriculture in Northern Norway.
The bad news: the rest of the planet is fecked and it might impact us in our tower.
The worst news: no more polar bears.
 
nimic said:
The good news: nicer weather and better agriculture in Northern Norway.
The bad news: the rest of the planet is fecked and it might impact us in our tower.
The worst news: no more polar bears.
Click to expand...
Even the 'nicer' weather kinda sucks though. Milder winters over here probably means much wetter winters with more frequent big snow dumps, constant change between freeze/thaw, and a larger snow mass to melt in springs (flooding rivers). Summers are also getting very dry, interrupted by downpours and many more tornado warnings than before. We're obviously not in a 'northern Norway' sort of environment over here, but they won't replace their current climate with something fun either I suppose.
 
Cheimoon said:
Even the 'nicer' weather kinda sucks though. Milder winters over here probably means much wetter winters with more frequent big snow dumps, constant change between freeze/thaw, and a larger snow mass to melt in springs (flooding rivers). Summers are also getting very dry, interrupted by downpours and many more tornado warnings than before. We're obviously not in a 'northern Norway' sort of environment over here, but they won't replace their current climate with something fun either I suppose.
Click to expand...
So…my idea of starting a winery in Canada isn’t bulletproof?
 
Cheimoon said:
Even the 'nicer' weather kinda sucks though. Milder winters over here probably means much wetter winters with more frequent big snow dumps, constant change between freeze/thaw, and a larger snow mass to melt in springs (flooding rivers). Summers are also getting very dry, interrupted by downpours and many more tornado warnings than before. We're obviously not in a 'northern Norway' sort of environment over here, but they won't replace their current climate with something fun either I suppose.
Click to expand...

It will get quite a lot wetter, and we'll lose snow during winter, and obviously all the Glazers will be gone within a few years. But perversely, climate change might be beneficial to Norway in some ways. Better conditions for agriculture, opening up the north-east passage for shipping (which will go straight past Norway), for example. It's also predicted that we'll actually get less snow melt for potential flooding, though in general extreme weather will be more common.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
So…my idea of starting a winery in Canada isn’t bulletproof?
Click to expand...
Join the queue. There are already great wineries near the Niagara Falls, and otherwise at various places across the country.

Sorry to shatter your dreams.
nimic said:
It will get quite a lot wetter, and we'll lose snow during winter, and obviously all the Glazers will be gone within a few years. But perversely, climate change might be beneficial to Norway in some ways. Better conditions for agriculture, opening up the north-east passage for shipping (which will go straight past Norway), for example. It's also predicted that we'll actually get less snow melt for potential flooding, though in general extreme weather will be more common.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it will be different everywhere. Here I do think they expect shorter winters with more snow (but also more cold snaps due to the distributed polar vortex). Thee flooding around here and Montreal is mostly due to snow melt further up the Ottawa River, where it won't soon get warm enough for snow not to accumulate all through winter. So people living on and around potential flood plains are well and truly screwed around here.
 
Cheimoon said:
Join the queue. There are already great wineries near the Niagara Falls, and otherwise at various places across the country.

Sorry to shatter your dreams.
Click to expand...
I know about them, I was joking about wine growing regions moving north (or south) even including the great grape varieties. It’s already a problem.

It’s weird to imagine a world where Bordeaux is not what it used to be, or we’re growing varieties in places we never thought would be feasible.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I know about them, I was joking about wine growing regions moving north (or south) even including the great grape varieties. It’s already a problem.

It’s weird to imagine a world where Bordeaux is not what it used to be, or we’re growing varieties in places we never thought would be feasible.
Click to expand...
I know, I was trying to rudely counterjoke. Ah, if only we understood each other... ;)

I also have to admit that I personally can't care for wine, so the idea of Bordeaux wine not being what it was doesn't faze me in the slightest. :wenger:
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I know about them, I was joking about wine growing regions moving north (or south) even including the great grape varieties. It’s already a problem.

It’s weird to imagine a world where Bordeaux is not what it used to be, or we’re growing varieties in places we never thought would be feasible.
Click to expand...
Syrah / Grenache might become allowed varietals in Bordeaux in the coming decades.
 
Cheimoon said:
I know, I was trying to rudely counterjoke. Ah, if only we understood each other... ;)

I also have to admit that I personally can't care for wine, so the idea of Bordeaux wine not being what it was doesn't faze me in the slightest. :wenger:
Click to expand...
Blasphemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.