The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Sadly climate change isn't really a vote winner against inflation and cost of living. Everything is geared towards the short term unless a cheap alternative is found and can be implemented without huge cost
I watched an on-line presentation a short while back by a Professor at Harvard in USA. I was sent the link by someone who knew him and he specialised in Ecology and Sustainability. He basically said its too late. The rate and scale of climate change would take hundreds of years to reverse. We can all make personal changes to food consumption, use EVs, reecycle etc. and it will slow the change but not really stop it. He also said the biggest issue was global birth rate and the ever growing population. All those extra mouths to feed and everything that goes with it - more and more production and consumption. He could be wrong, of course...
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
I used to think he was being stupid to deny climate change but it dawned on me some time ago that he was simply protecting the interest of all the groups/companies/individuals who benefit from the oil industry.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
I used to think he was being stupid to deny climate change but it dawned on me some time ago that he was simply protecting the interest of all the groups/companies/individuals who benefit from the oil industry.
I might agree had I not heard him suggest injecting or drinking bleach to cure COVID. Maybe he has shares in the great bleach producing giants. 😉
Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.
Just looked it up and the estimated annual global losses due to natural catastrophes is around the $300BN mark. Of which far less than 50% is insured! That's 50% in G20 countries but only 10% in the world's poorer countries.
Perhaps when losses and associated premiums rise then their might be a bigger push to clarify causes and remedial action? Right now the debate is full of deniers plus electorates in major economies have bigger concerns.
To place that number in context, the smaller economies in G7 such as the UK have GDP at $3-4TRN. How big does the natural catastrophe impact need to be to ensure a change of approach?
Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.
Just looked it up and the estimated annual global losses due to natural catastrophes is around the $300BN mark. Of which far less than 50% is insured! That's 50% in G20 countries but only 10% in the world's poorer countries.
Perhaps when losses and associated premiums rise then their might be a bigger push to clarify causes and remedial action? Right now the debate is full of deniers plus electorates in major economies have bigger concerns.
To place that number in context, the smaller economies in G7 such as the UK have GDP at $3-4TRN. How big does the natural catastrophe impact need to be to ensure a change of approach?
Trouble is by the time a natural catastrophe knocks on the UKs door it'll be a decade too late. There is already a majority of climate scientists saying its too late all we can do is slow it down and minimise impact.
Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.
Just looked it up and the estimated annual global losses due to natural catastrophes is around the $300BN mark. Of which far less than 50% is insured! That's 50% in G20 countries but only 10% in the world's poorer countries.
Perhaps when losses and associated premiums rise then their might be a bigger push to clarify causes and remedial action? Right now the debate is full of deniers plus electorates in major economies have bigger concerns.
To place that number in context, the smaller economies in G7 such as the UK have GDP at $3-4TRN. How big does the natural catastrophe impact need to be to ensure a change of approach?
Trouble is by the time a natural catastrophe knocks on the UKs door it'll be a decade too late. There is already a majority of climate scientists saying its too late all we can do is slow it down and minimise impact.
All mankind can ever do is slow things down / minimise impact. The question is what data, information and expert opinion will convince electorates, leaders and global bodies to shift course in a meaningful way? So will the aggregation of all Nat Cat damages cause corporates and markets to change course?
There's something called ESG reporting for corporate entities that informs stakeholders and investors - ESG claims that it's a "means of fostering transparency, ensuring accountability, and driving long-term value creation. Companies are now leveraging ESG reporting to integrate sustainability into every facet of their operations." But how much of global operations are covered - does the reporting cover all subsidiary / partner activity?
Put another way, what % of global investment will choose sustainable / clean investment over the dirtier activities if returns are similar or perhaps worse.
Shocking scenes of devastation and loss of life in south eastern Spain. One of those things or a trend ?
there is an unprecedented event like this happening in the world every couple of weeks to a month at the moment. People choosing to look away/not engage, other things going on in the world (and the medias general attitude to climate change) so they don't really get the coverage they should have. Wonder when people will take notice?
Lots of scaring things coming out over the last few weeks, about AMOC, about ocean temperatures, earths natural carbon sinks not taking anything in this year as they are basically full. All things exacerbating the already desperate situation. Scientists are starting to say the tipping point has already been reached and all we can do is slow it down/mitigate at this point. Desperately terrifying.
Just looked it up and the estimated annual global losses due to natural catastrophes is around the $300BN mark. Of which far less than 50% is insured! That's 50% in G20 countries but only 10% in the world's poorer countries.
Perhaps when losses and associated premiums rise then their might be a bigger push to clarify causes and remedial action? Right now the debate is full of deniers plus electorates in major economies have bigger concerns.
To place that number in context, the smaller economies in G7 such as the UK have GDP at $3-4TRN. How big does the natural catastrophe impact need to be to ensure a change of approach?
Trouble is by the time a natural catastrophe knocks on the UKs door it'll be a decade too late. There is already a majority of climate scientists saying its too late all we can do is slow it down and minimise impact.
All mankind can ever do is slow things down / minimise impact. The question is what data, information and expert opinion will convince electorates, leaders and global bodies to shift course in a meaningful way? So will the aggregation of all Nat Cat damages cause corporates and markets to change course?
There's something called ESG reporting for corporate entities that informs stakeholders and investors - ESG claims that it's a "means of fostering transparency, ensuring accountability, and driving long-term value creation. Companies are now leveraging ESG reporting to integrate sustainability into every facet of their operations." But how much of global operations are covered - does the reporting cover all subsidiary / partner activity?
Put another way, what % of global investment will choose sustainable / clean investment over the dirtier activities if returns are similar or perhaps worse.
The USA have just put a man into The White House who has a mantra of “drill,drill,drill”. Doesn’t sound particularly hopeful.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
As long as so called progressives can’t handle a slightly longer walk to their car, we have no hope of and real change.
I’ve thought all along that climate change wont be taken totally seriously until there is a major catastrophe in one of the worlds great cities and it probably needs to be in the USA for them to wake up to what’s needed. Dreadful to think it’s going to need massive loss of life and destruction on a large scale for the world to wake up. I think tipping point is very close if it’s not already been reached. It’s a terrifying prospect ahead of us.
Which is why I’m happy to take a chance with an EV. Every little helps, surely.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
And it looks like he’s appointing an anti vaxer (Kennedy) to head up Health.
What could possibly go wrong.
There’s even talk of banning vaccines. Not sure if that means all vaccines which by the way is what RFK Jnr advocates but I can certainly see MRNA vaccines being banned in the USA. They’re batshit crazy. Quite what the medical profession will make of it and do is going to be interesting.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
As long as so called progressives can’t handle a slightly longer walk to their car, we have no hope of and real change.
A senior official at COP29 climate change conference in Azerbaijan appears to have used his role to arrange a meeting to discuss potential fossil fuel deals, the BBC can report.
I’ve thought all along that climate change wont be taken totally seriously until there is a major catastrophe in one of the worlds great cities and it probably needs to be in the USA for them to wake up to what’s needed. Dreadful to think it’s going to need massive loss of life and destruction on a large scale for the world to wake up. I think tipping point is very close if it’s not already been reached. It’s a terrifying prospect ahead of us.
Which is why I’m happy to take a chance with an EV. Every little helps,,surely.
It does. Everything we don't do but could exacerbates the problem, so I do what I can based on what I now know, no longer able to claim I know no better. Whatever those who blame others to justify inaction choose to do has no bearing on how I live my life and the choices I make.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
As long as so called progressives can’t handle a slightly longer walk to their car, we have no hope of and real change.
What’s that about, Stu?
Look at the resistance to EVs based on inconvenience, the outcry over paper straws, or any number of other examples where people are fully behind fighting climate change, until it means they change the way they live.
The idea that it’s only climate change deniers that are the issue is ridiculous, it’s a human issue. Not a political one.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
As long as so called progressives can’t handle a slightly longer walk to their car, we have no hope of and real change.
What’s that about, Stu?
Look at the resistance to EVs based on inconvenience, the outcry over paper straws, or any number of other examples where people are fully behind fighting climate change, until it means they change the way they live.
The idea that it’s only climate change deniers that are the issue is ridiculous, it’s a human issue. Not a political one.
I think you’re underestimating the inconvenience changing to an EV would be for millions of people at present. Certainly here in the U.K.
The world's largest exporter of natural gas has just elected a climate denier. 🙄
I seriously doubt that many of those who voted for him don't believe the surface of the earth is heating up, and he won't find a credible scientific adviser who denies it is, but I guess climate concerns weren't top priority in the election. Will they ever be?
Only hope is consumers/ordinary folk getting the message and voting with their dollar bills. Trump can call it a hoax but he understands consumer demand. Also I recollect California starting to make reforms under their own law when Trump was last in.
As long as so called progressives can’t handle a slightly longer walk to their car, we have no hope of and real change.
What’s that about, Stu?
Look at the resistance to EVs based on inconvenience, the outcry over paper straws, or any number of other examples where people are fully behind fighting climate change, until it means they change the way they live.
The idea that it’s only climate change deniers that are the issue is ridiculous, it’s a human issue. Not a political one.
I think you’re underestimating the inconvenience changing to an EV would be for millions of people at present. Certainly here in the U.K.
Compared to the alternative and the inconvenience to come, I’d suggest people suck it up and do everything they can, but for the most part people simply aren’t interested.
A senior official at COP29 climate change conference in Azerbaijan appears to have used his role to arrange a meeting to discuss potential fossil fuel deals, the BBC can report.
It's good to see the Met Office working together with The Wildlife Trusts on climate change and the effect it has on our wildlife. The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries on earth and nature needs all the help it can get. Nature can also help in mitigating some of the effects of Climate Change if humans give it a chance to do so.
Basically started saying that if you compare it to your body, you know that you should cut back on bad habits etc, and you will literally be able to spend more time with your children/grandchildren (if you're lucky enough to have them) which we would all want, and yet still people make the wrong choices. Even pre diabetics for example, where changing behaviours are vital.
Even people who are "on board" like most in here, definitely don't do all they could or possibly should. In reality a lot of people are focusing on other things, which is exactly why government intervention is paramount.
4-5 year election cycles though mean that no one will grasp this until it's too late, which it might already be!
Comments
https://damremoval.eu/report-2021/
Perhaps when losses and associated premiums rise then their might be a bigger push to clarify causes and remedial action? Right now the debate is full of deniers plus electorates in major economies have bigger concerns.
To place that number in context, the smaller economies in G7 such as the UK have GDP at $3-4TRN. How big does the natural catastrophe impact need to be to ensure a change of approach?
This year set to be first to breach 1.5C global warming limit
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dpnxnvv2go
There's something called ESG reporting for corporate entities that informs stakeholders and investors - ESG claims that it's a "means of fostering transparency, ensuring accountability, and driving long-term value creation. Companies are now leveraging ESG reporting to integrate sustainability into every facet of their operations." But how much of global operations are covered - does the reporting cover all subsidiary / partner activity?
Put another way, what % of global investment will choose sustainable / clean investment over the dirtier activities if returns are similar or perhaps worse.
Every little helps, surely.
A senior official at COP29 climate change conference in Azerbaijan appears to have used his role to arrange a meeting to discuss potential fossil fuel deals, the BBC can report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmzvdn9e18o
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2024/collaborating-with-the-wildlife-trusts
Basically started saying that if you compare it to your body, you know that you should cut back on bad habits etc, and you will literally be able to spend more time with your children/grandchildren (if you're lucky enough to have them) which we would all want, and yet still people make the wrong choices. Even pre diabetics for example, where changing behaviours are vital.
Even people who are "on board" like most in here, definitely don't do all they could or possibly should. In reality a lot of people are focusing on other things, which is exactly why government intervention is paramount.
4-5 year election cycles though mean that no one will grasp this until it's too late, which it might already be!