Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-63623307

The UN says that the 8th billionth person has been born.
And that this has happened just 11 years after the 7th billionth.

Unless humanity can at least control its population, the effects of this on our planet and pretty much all the other species are very bad indeed.
 
VanDeBank said:
The government setting up 'a stable market (by enforcing certain property rights and imposing taxes' is what the government should concern themselves with.
Click to expand...

And I gave you a whole bunch of examples of how the enforcement of property rights and taxes leads to very different outcomes in terms of fuel price.

VanDeBank said:
The distinction is arbitrary and political, but let's not pretend that it isn't quite clear.
Click to expand...

It is indeed arbitrary.
The govt sets up a market in some things. It enforces land rights so that some entities own multiple unoccupied houses, while others sleep on pavements. But other markets haven't yet been set up. For example the govt could have set up a market for air. We would pay the rights holder to get a certain quality of air, those not able to do so could move to places with cheaper or even free air, like coalfields or pesticide factories. But air has not been commodified like that as yet, and instead we rely on inefficient non-market regulations and fines on building and pollution.

The same principles mean that when talking about fuel, price is "arbitrary and political." As is the choice to rush into an unlivable world.
 
These last 2 posts are perfect examples of what's wrong with far left ideology.

Population control and the rationing of air, all under the false guise that we'll all cease to exist in the next 10, 20, 30 or however many years it is now.
 
VanDeBank said:
These last 2 posts are perfect examples of what's wrong with far left ideology.

Population control and the rationing of air, all under the false guise that we'll all cease to exist in the next 10, 20, 30 or however many years it is now.
Click to expand...
Air privatisation is not a left policy. It is extending markets to their full potential, something the left does not like.
 
VanDeBank said:
I said far left, and I wasn't referring to an economical element, but an authoritarian one.
Click to expand...

As a far leftist, I have no idea how you think I'm endorsing air privatisation, or how there is a non-economics point to make about privatisation.
 
berbatrick said:
As a far leftist, I have no idea how you think I'm endorsing air privatisation, or how there is a non-economics point to make about privatisation.
Click to expand...
I have no clue how you think rationing is identical to privatisation.

Any who, my point was that these ideas (the other being population control) are so absurd, it shows how dangerous the far left is.
 
calodo2003 said:
This passes as comedy as well as reality for some in my country...

Click to expand...


Oh god, I read through his timeline. Of course he would be a DeSantis fan and would retweet Rob Schneider tweets about his new KIDS CARTOON ON DWPLUS jesus christ. I thought most of those 'blue collar comics' knew it was a schtick and stayed away from the politics of it.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
"nobody is fighting for climate change"

Click to expand...


We should probably not invite these cnuts next time. There's not enough of them to worry about as consumers and they've no interest in helping as producers.
 
VanDeBank said:
Its not like people want to use the cheapest fuel source possible.
Click to expand...

Oil and gas are not cheaper than sunlight and air. If they were then we wouldn't have a problem as there'd be no money in oil and gas and the polluters would support the monetisable solution.
 
VanDeBank said:
I have no clue how you think rationing is identical to privatisation.

Any who, my point was that these ideas (the other being population control) are so absurd, it shows how dangerous the far left is.
Click to expand...
What a load of utter bollocks :lol:
 
TwoSheds said:
Oil and gas are not cheaper than sunlight and air. If they were then we wouldn't have a problem as there'd be no money in oil and gas and the polluters would support the monetisable solution.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's no money in cheap things that everyone uses :rolleyes:

And last I checked, humans weren't plants or windmills. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is cheaper (which is why they bring in a feckload of money through taxation), which is why we use them and the only reason the "renewable" sources are even remotely competitive is because of subsidization.

Raven said:
What a load of utter bollocks :lol:
Click to expand...
Which part, that rationing isn't equal to privatization or that population control and air rationing are absurd ideas?
 
VanDeBank said:
Yes, there's no money in cheap things that everyone uses :rolleyes:

And last I checked, humans weren't plants or windmills. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is cheaper (which is why they bring in a feckload of money through taxation), which is why we use them and the only reason the "renewable" sources are even remotely competitive is because of subsidization.


Which part, that rationing isn't equal to privatization or that population control and air rationing are absurd ideas?
Click to expand...

Sunlight and air aren't cheap, they're fecking free. Fossil fuels are not cheaper for grid generation with or without subsidy, solar and wind have been cheaper than gas power plants for some years now. They require energy storage and more complex management though, which takes time and money to develop. If the will was there to invest in the grid we'd be a lot further down that road than we are currently, but it would be far less profitable for the vested interests hence why it hasn't happened.
 
VanDeBank said:
Yes, there's no money in cheap things that everyone uses :rolleyes:

And last I checked, humans weren't plants or windmills. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is cheaper (which is why they bring in a feckload of money through taxation), which is why we use them and the only reason the "renewable" sources are even remotely competitive is because of subsidization.


Which part, that rationing isn't equal to privatization or that population control and air rationing are absurd ideas?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't understand why you're attributing these things to leftists?
 
TwoSheds said:
Sunlight and air aren't cheap, they're fecking free. Fossil fuels are not cheaper for grid generation with or without subsidy, solar and wind have been cheaper than gas power plants for some years now. They require energy storage and more complex management though, which takes time and money to develop. If the will was there to invest in the grid we'd be a lot further down that road than we are currently, but it would be far less profitable for the vested interests hence why it hasn't happened.
Click to expand...
I could have also bolded "energy storage", "complex management" and "time", euphemisms for "more costly".

It's expensive, mate. It's why California is just outright banning gas heaters. They're cheap and practical.

Raven said:
Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't understand why you're attributing these things to leftists?
Click to expand...
VanDeBank said:
I said far left, and I wasn't referring to an economical element, but an authoritarian one.
Click to expand...
 
VanDeBank said:
I could have also bolded "energy storage", "complex management" and "time", euphemisms for "more costly".

It's expensive, mate. It's why California is just outright banning gas heaters. They're cheap and practical.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back up that sentiment?
 
VanDeBank said:
I could have also bolded "energy storage", "complex management" and "time", euphemisms for "more costly".

It's expensive, mate. It's why California is just outright banning gas heaters. They're cheap and practical.
Click to expand...

It's not cost that is the issue, it's who pays for it. Take the example of a block of flats in a British city with 20 flats in it. It's got a south facing roof that could easily accommodate solar panels, it's got a loft that could accommodate a battery for storage. Each flat pays £1k a year for electricity so £20k in total which is ~60,000kWh at the current cost cap of 34p/kWh (massively exaggerated because I've assumed standing charges are irrelevant and all the cost comes purely from electricity consumed) which equates to 164kWh a day, which is 6.8kW per hour.

For £24k you could get 7.6kW of solar panels installed with 13kWh of battery storage just as a single end user, ignoring how costs would reduce if you were buying in bulk across a block of flats, or a council, or a city, or a nation. So you could probably safely assume that at least a third of your electricity bill would be covered by these panels, meaning they'd pay for themselves in about 3 years, and thereafter each flat would be saving £330 a year. Conservatively.

So why don't all blocks of flats have solar panels on them you ask? Well think about how maintenance of a block of flats works, they are generally administered by a management company who wouldn't benefit at all from the energy savings so what incentive do they have to do it? And if I in one flat wanted to stump up for the solar panels myself and just connect them to my smart meter and sell any excess energy back to the grid then it would take me 20+ years to pay back all the panel and battery install costs. And not only that, if I actually wanted to benefit from the energy storage I'd have to have the batteries in my living room instead of the loft. Clearly you wouldn't do that so in actual fact you'd just install the panels and either a tiny battery or none at all.

It's a lovely microcosm of how tackling these issues at a systemic level would not just save the environment but also save us all money, which is why it hasn't happened yet. There is no incentive for an energy company to save you money.
 
Just substitute Australia for any other country and you'll soon see why absolutely nothing is going to change.

 
Every one of these seems to end with a headline that says “but not nearly enough was done”. It’s all superficial bullshit to make the countries feel better while they ultimately do nothing. Depressing shit.
 
Humans are far too selfish and greedy for climate change to be a real issue. It'll only become a genuine issue when there's world wide disasters, then finally the human race might become proactive.

Governments don't care, all they're bothered about is the short term. They don't give one feck about future generations. On top of that you have the fossil fuel industry who will be determined to ensure it doesn't go out of business so they'll play every card they have and given how much these guys are worth, we're always going to be fighting a losing battle.

Unfortunately this is just the cold hard reality.
 
Raven said:
Do you have anything to back up that sentiment?
Click to expand...
That California is banning gas heaters? Or that they're cheap and practical?

“Together furnaces and water heaters typically that run on gas account for 90% of gas use in the average California household." - Leah Louis Prescott, environmental activist.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/california-bans-sale-of-natural-gas-heaters-by-2030/

Californians must hate the earth.

TwoSheds said:
It's not cost that is the issue, it's who pays for it. Take the example of a block of flats in a British city with 20 flats in it. It's got a south facing roof that could easily accommodate solar panels, it's got a loft that could accommodate a battery for storage. Each flat pays £1k a year for electricity so £20k in total which is ~60,000kWh at the current cost cap of 34p/kWh (massively exaggerated because I've assumed standing charges are irrelevant and all the cost comes purely from electricity consumed) which equates to 164kWh a day, which is 6.8kW per hour.

For £24k you could get 7.6kW of solar panels installed with 13kWh of battery storage just as a single end user, ignoring how costs would reduce if you were buying in bulk across a block of flats, or a council, or a city, or a nation. So you could probably safely assume that at least a third of your electricity bill would be covered by these panels, meaning they'd pay for themselves in about 3 years, and thereafter each flat would be saving £330 a year. Conservatively.

So why don't all blocks of flats have solar panels on them you ask? Well think about how maintenance of a block of flats works, they are generally administered by a management company who wouldn't benefit at all from the energy savings so what incentive do they have to do it? And if I in one flat wanted to stump up for the solar panels myself and just connect them to my smart meter and sell any excess energy back to the grid then it would take me 20+ years to pay back all the panel and battery install costs. And not only that, if I actually wanted to benefit from the energy storage I'd have to have the batteries in my living room instead of the loft. Clearly you wouldn't do that so in actual fact you'd just install the panels and either a tiny battery or none at all.

It's a lovely microcosm of how tackling these issues at a systemic level would not just save the environment but also save us all money, which is why it hasn't happened yet. There is no incentive for an energy company to save you money.
Click to expand...
Fossil fuels are cheaper for the consumer in the absence of government bullshit, such as solar panel subsidies or any sort of involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The fact that you want to ignore any sort of existing infrastructure in the cost analysis, is because you have an agenda, i.e. the world is going to end and we need to stop using fossil fuels.

Since you seem familiar with the material, what are the subsidies/taxes on the solar panels you're referring to? I have solar panels and the only reason I bothered to get them was because they were "free" (ie, I'm forced to pay for mine and everyone elses through taxes).

We're not going to run the entire country on solar panels. Wind turbines take up valuable space (I live in Holland), unless you put them in the sea, which makes them far more expensive (they're planned for 2030, but they'll get canceled between now and 2040 by a far-right government). It's either fossil fuels or nuclear (we have 1 and are planning on building 2), unless we agree to make everyone poorer/waste a bunch of money in order to "save the planet".
 
VanDeBank said:
That California is banning gas heaters? Or that they're cheap and practical?

“Together furnaces and water heaters typically that run on gas account for 90% of gas use in the average California household." - Leah Louis Prescott, environmental activist.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/california-bans-sale-of-natural-gas-heaters-by-2030/

Californians must hate the earth.


Fossil fuels are cheaper for the consumer in the absence of government bullshit, such as solar panel subsidies or any sort of involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The fact that you want to ignore any sort of existing infrastructure in the cost analysis, is because you have an agenda, i.e. the world is going to end and we need to stop using fossil fuels.

Since you seem familiar with the material, what are the subsidies/taxes on the solar panels you're referring to? I have solar panels and the only reason I bothered to get them was because they were "free" (ie, I'm forced to pay for mine and everyone elses through taxes).

We're not going to run the entire country on solar panels. Wind turbines take up valuable space (I live in Holland), unless you put them in the sea, which makes them far more expensive (they're planned for 2030, but they'll get canceled between now and 2040 by a far-right government). It's either fossil fuels or nuclear (we have 1 and are planning on building 2), unless we agree to make everyone poorer/waste a bunch of money in order to "save the planet".
Click to expand...
No. The part that we were discussing. The part where you claimed that these were "far leftist" ideas.
 
VanDeBank said:
That California is banning gas heaters? Or that they're cheap and practical?

“Together furnaces and water heaters typically that run on gas account for 90% of gas use in the average California household." - Leah Louis Prescott, environmental activist.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/california-bans-sale-of-natural-gas-heaters-by-2030/

Californians must hate the earth.


Fossil fuels are cheaper for the consumer in the absence of government bullshit, such as solar panel subsidies or any sort of involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The fact that you want to ignore any sort of existing infrastructure in the cost analysis, is because you have an agenda, i.e. the world is going to end and we need to stop using fossil fuels.

Since you seem familiar with the material, what are the subsidies/taxes on the solar panels you're referring to? I have solar panels and the only reason I bothered to get them was because they were "free" (ie, I'm forced to pay for mine and everyone elses through taxes).

We're not going to run the entire country on solar panels. Wind turbines take up valuable space (I live in Holland), unless you put them in the sea, which makes them far more expensive (they're planned for 2030, but they'll get canceled between now and 2040 by a far-right government). It's either fossil fuels or nuclear (we have 1 and are planning on building 2), unless we agree to make everyone poorer/waste a bunch of money in order to "save the planet".
Click to expand...

Fossil fuels are absolutely not cheaper for the consumer. Imagine the prices I quoted saved 100% again in taxes from subsidies (they don't, I think they save like 5% VAT and perhaps a few more % for the green levy on energy bills), they would still pay back in 6 years without the subsidies at current UK energy prices. It is all a question of political will since there is no incentive on the supplier side to reduce your bills, and a lot of customers can't get a proper deal due to systemic factors such as the scenario I outlined.

The sun is free! Completely free. Gas costs approximately 9p/kWh at wholesale prices in the UK atm. If I have 7.6kW of solar panels and let's say they produce that amount for 4h a day on average (I would have thought that is a very conservative estimate) I get approximately 30kWh a day for probably twenty-five years. Let's call it 20 so you don't get upset. 30x365x20 = 219,000kWh which even if you could produce electricity with gas at 100% efficiency (you'd be incredibly lucky to achieve 50% electrical efficiency at the point of use in fact but let's not quibble about it, perhaps you're putting the gas in your boiler for use as heat which might be more like 80-90% efficient) would still cost you £19,700 pounds excluding any infrastructure or generation costs. So you'd be saving >£19,700 in fuel alone and the cost price of the panels+storage is £24k which means to be more efficient you'd have to spend <~£4k in costs over 20 years (<£200 a year budget) on cost of delivering your wholesale gas to the end user + the costs of the equipment used to turn the gas into heat and/or electricity in order to be cost competitive. Which of course is not possible.

Building the new infrastructure is clearly cheaper than clinging on to fossil fuels whatever way you look at it, but there is no economic incentive from the supply side to do it.
 
TwoSheds said:
Fossil fuels are absolutely not cheaper for the consumer. Imagine the prices I quoted saved 100% again in taxes from subsidies (they don't, I think they save like 5% VAT and perhaps a few more % for the green levy on energy bills), they would still pay back in 6 years without the subsidies at current UK energy prices. It is all a question of political will since there is no incentive on the supplier side to reduce your bills, and a lot of customers can't get a proper deal due to systemic factors such as the scenario I outlined.

The sun is free! Completely free. Gas costs approximately 9p/kWh at wholesale prices in the UK atm. If I have 7.6kW of solar panels and let's say they produce that amount for 4h a day on average (I would have thought that is a very conservative estimate) I get approximately 30kWh a day for probably twenty-five years. Let's call it 20 so you don't get upset. 30x365x20 = 219,000kWh which even if you could produce electricity with gas at 100% efficiency (you'd be incredibly lucky to achieve 50% electrical efficiency at the point of use in fact but let's not quibble about it, perhaps you're putting the gas in your boiler for use as heat which might be more like 80-90% efficient) would still cost you £19,700 pounds excluding any infrastructure or generation costs. So you'd be saving >£19,700 in fuel alone and the cost price of the panels+storage is £24k which means to be more efficient you'd have to spend <~£4k in costs over 20 years (<£200 a year budget) on cost of delivering your wholesale gas to the end user + the costs of the equipment used to turn the gas into heat and/or electricity in order to be cost competitive. Which of course is not possible.

Building the new infrastructure is clearly cheaper than clinging on to fossil fuels whatever way you look at it, but there is no economic incentive from the supply side to do it.
Click to expand...
Gas prices atm are inflated due to political bullshit. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the UK but in Holland's case, we're being sent less gas by Russia as retribution for helping Ukraine, which is a political choice. And to those who may find this offensive, my adopted country does feck all about the Palestinians and Ughuyrs, but did decide to invade Afghanistan and support the Iraq invasion.These are all political calculations.

We've also been pumping out less gas ourselves because of earthquakes, a process set in motion shortly before the war started, and we've neglected nuclear energy due to moany environmentalists and incompetence from politicians. In addition wind turbines are terribly expensive because land is expensive in a densely populated country and environmentalists moan a lot (sometimes rightfully so I might add)

Yes, I suppose being energy independent (and not have earthquakes) has value and we could have solar panels everywhere (we're well on our way). It will still need to be supplemented by other energy sources. Energy is difficult to store, the sun doesn't always shine and cars and industry still need to run. Coal from Poland is dirt cheap, The infrastructure for digging up and burning coal exists, it's just the emissions that are a problem for you and most of the political spectrum, right?

I think you've drawn a wrong conclusion with regards to renewables vs fossil by specifically picking gas and solar, not that there is anything wrong with making that comparison, mind. I get that both of those fuel sources can get us through the winter, but there's more things to consider/it's not the full story.
 
VanDeBank said:
Gas prices atm are inflated due to political bullshit. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the UK but in Holland's case, we're being sent less gas by Russia as retribution for helping Ukraine, which is a political choice. And to those who may find this offensive, my adopted country does feck all about the Palestinians and Ughuyrs, but did decide to invade Afghanistan and support the Iraq invasion.These are all political calculations.

We've also been pumping out less gas ourselves because of earthquakes, a process set in motion shortly before the war started, and we've neglected nuclear energy due to moany environmentalists and incompetence from politicians. In addition wind turbines are terribly expensive because land is expensive in a densely populated country and environmentalists moan a lot (sometimes rightfully so I might add)

Yes, I suppose being energy independent (and not have earthquakes) has value and we could have solar panels everywhere (we're well on our way). It will still need to be supplemented by other energy sources. Energy is difficult to store, the sun doesn't always shine and cars and industry still need to run. Coal from Poland is dirt cheap, The infrastructure for digging up and burning coal exists, it's just the emissions that are a problem for you and most of the political spectrum, right?

I think you've drawn a wrong conclusion with regards to renewables vs fossil by specifically picking gas and solar, not that there is anything wrong with making that comparison, mind. I get that both of those fuel sources can get us through the winter, but there's more things to consider/it's not the full story.
Click to expand...

Coal is only cheap because nobody wants it because it's incredibly dirty, dangerous to produce and bad for all involved. If people wanted to use it it wouldn't be cheap. It is also prone to swings in price as we saw when China and India had to fire up all their coal plants this year when they hadn't intended to. You could argue that gas is valuable because it is not as catastrophically awful for all involved from production through to end user. Also, electricity from coal power is not cheap anyway due to higher capital and maintenance costs, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

If you really want to go nuts though and not worry about carbon at all we could add up the cost of doing nothing except pay to try to mitigate the vast amounts of damage climate change will cause Vs just cutting our emissions, cleaning up our air, giving ourselves better energy security, producing our energy exactly where it is needed rather than needing vast inefficient grids for 100% of our power.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....-2-trillion-each-year-by-2100-omb.html?espv=1

There is no economic case in any universe where fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables for the man in the street.
 
Oh joy the climate change denier is back spouting his drivel again. Go make a thread for your oh so interesting takes and leave this one in peace away from your bulkshit.
 
 
When good ambition turns bad. France have just been (the only country) fined for not reaching their renewable capacity installation target. However, if you do the carbon emissions analysis instead, it comes out easily ahead of most of its neighbours (due to its nuclear power stations).



France is committed to adding more renewables - like insisting supermarket carparks etc install solar panels.

Apparently France and Germany are going to propose a new regulation that puts emissions properly into the "good power generation" equation.
 
https://news.sky.com/story/new-time...has-changed-since-iconic-blue-marble-12763279

Simply breathtaking but for all the wrong reasons.
The changes humanity is making to our tiny and fragile planet are extremely troubling.
And what makes it that much worse is that now in 2022, there are over 8,000,000,000 people living on our planet compared with just over half that in 1972.
Take a look and tell me you are not shocked.

EDIT. Should read less than half that in 1972. Actual 3.85bn.
 
@Buster15
you could exterminate 4 of those 8 bn, bringing the population back to 1972 levels...and nothing would be solved. Emissions would be cut by 7% only.
jnCpEyn.png
 
VanDeBank said:
These last 2 posts are perfect examples of what's wrong with far left ideology.

Population control and the rationing of air, all under the false guise that we'll all cease to exist in the next 10, 20, 30 or however many years it is now.
Click to expand...
Nobody is claiming we will all cease to exist in the next 10,20,30 years etc. What a completely false base to be arguing against.
 
berbatrick said:
@Buster15
you could exterminate 4 of those 8 bn, bringing the population back to 1972 levels...and nothing would be solved. Emissions would be cut by 7% only.
jnCpEyn.png
Click to expand...

Assuming all those 4bn were as shown as the bottom 50%.
But the video shows far more than just emissions doesn't it.
It shows the massive habitat loss due to humans and it shows the massive loss of the Arctic ice.

We already know that humanity is consuming significantly more of the planet natural resources than are sustainable - 1.5x.
So over 8 billions of people spell disaster for planet Earth.
 
Buster15 said:
Assuming all those 4bn were as shown as the bottom 50%.
But the video shows far more than just emissions doesn't it.
It shows the massive habitat loss due to humans and it shows the massive loss of the Arctic ice.

We already know that humanity is consuming significantly more of the planet natural resources than are sustainable - 1.5x.
So over 8 billions of people spell disaster for planet Earth.
Click to expand...

Majority of habitat loss is caused not by housing but by resource use (mining, agriculture, industry).
750px-Main_land_use_by_land_use_type%2C_EU_2018_%28%25_of_total_area%29_May_2021.png

Again, you can kill 4 billion people and not make a major dent in world-wide consumption of all those things, which are as skewed to the top as carbon emissions. As your sentence in bold says, it is the resource consumption that is the problem.
 
This is from 2011:


It cites Paul Murtaugh of Oregon State University, whose research shows that:

"An extra child born today in the United States, would, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra child in China, 55 times that of an Indian child or 86 times that of a Nigerian child."
Click to expand...
And it draws on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which makes the first comprehensive assessment of how changes in population affect carbon dioxide emissions. It concludes:

"Slowing population growth could provide 16-19% of the emissions reductions suggested to be necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change."
Click to expand...
In other words, it can make a contribution. But the other 81-84% will have to come from reducing consumption and changing technologies. The UN report concludes that "even if zero population growth were achieved, that would barely touch the climate problem".
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ct/27/population-consumption-threat-to-planet
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.