Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Change - IPCC Report
Comments
-
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.0 -
charltonkeston said:I doubt we will change our attitudes much in the coming years until it is really is too late to do anything worthwhile. It’s all very well pointing at developing countries and telling them the errors of their ways but we are the ones who have transferred everything from industries to lifestyle. At the same time we all, including us and the developing world, want more of everything. Something will have to give and as humans have demonstrated throughout history we are very nasty. Just wait until various highly populated areas of the world become unable to support life either through heat or rising water. 20 people in an inflatable gets people in this country ready to send in the navy to defend us.
At some point in the not to distant future disaster awaits life on this planet.
CK: You are right we all want more of everything. THAT needs to change. But imminent disaster? There is no evidence of this. And, if there was and the fens were indeed facing flooding and ruin don't you think every millionaire in Cambridgeshire (there are many!) Would have run to the hills in their droves by now? But none have. Nor have the rich and clued up in all low lying areas. Why? Because there is no imminent danger.
Follow the house buying habits of the rich. If THEY aren't shifting then neither should you worry..1 -
Wow6
-
Someone’s been watching YouTube videoooos!ValleyOfTears said:
You are absolutely right Leuth. Blaming us for climate change is not right. And we discover one eruption of Krakatoa emits more harm to the atmosphere than a billion long haul flights anyway. But we can't blame molten lava for our global unhappiness, or gain superiority over volcanic debris so we dump it on the bloke on the street.. Wasn't it ever this?Leuth said:Blaming 'us' for this isn't right either. The blame lies at the top. The elites. The barons. Those who ordain the logging, the drilling, the burning.
Let us recycle our crap. Be concerned about ruining air quality by lazily driving everywhere in town unnecessarily.
But policing eachother and guilting the poor bloke on the street because of deforestation of the Amazon basin or the depletion of coral and bowing to the God of Gaia really has to stop. We've all had enough..If you really need the hit of blaming someone ...start with Krakatoa.6 -
Hmmm, because millionaires haven’t all bought houses on tops of hills and mountains there’s no need to be concerned? Okaaayy........0
-
Someone is so deep in a youtube conspiracy hole, it's sad to see1
-
According to YouTube quoting a website “Orlando Sentinel’ the population of the U.K. in 2025 will be 25 million. On social media you can find every kind of Crying, valley dwelling wacko there is. I wonder what those believers will think when in 2025 the U.K. population is exactly the same as it is now0
-
Interesting choice of word. What is imminent exactly? Are we talking in human terms which could mean in an hour or a week or in planetary terms which could mean in 25 - 1000 years. There is evidence that the climate is changing and almost weekly now records for some weather event are broken. I’m coming round to the thought that where I thought I was too old (65) for climate change events to impact me directly that now they almost certainly will. I’m thinking now that the U.K. will see temperature records broken year on year. Record rainfall and flooding and periods of drought. I suspect my grandchildren will live in a very different U.K. as for the fens. They could just as easily dry out or be in continual flood.ValleyOfTears said:charltonkeston said:I doubt we will change our attitudes much in the coming years until it is really is too late to do anything worthwhile. It’s all very well pointing at developing countries and telling them the errors of their ways but we are the ones who have transferred everything from industries to lifestyle. At the same time we all, including us and the developing world, want more of everything. Something will have to give and as humans have demonstrated throughout history we are very nasty. Just wait until various highly populated areas of the world become unable to support life either through heat or rising water. 20 people in an inflatable gets people in this country ready to send in the navy to defend us.
At some point in the not to distant future disaster awaits life on this planet.
CK: You are right we all want more of everything. THAT needs to change. But imminent disaster? There is no evidence of this. And, if there was and the fens were indeed facing flooding and ruin don't you think every millionaire in Cambridgeshire (there are many!) Would have run to the hills in their droves by now? But none have. Nor have the rich and clued up in all low lying areas. Why? Because there is no imminent danger.
Follow the house buying habits of the rich. If THEY aren't shifting then neither should you worry..1 -
I’m living through it right now in Japan.0
-
@ValleyOfTears please read the following link which explains how global warming and rising sea levels are connected.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1#:~:text=The%20change%20in%20sea%20levels%20is%20linked%20to,attributable%20to%20warmer%20oceans%20simply%20occupying%20more%20space.
How can you have escaped the news this year of the flooding across the world caused by extreme rainfall, as well as the dangerously high temperatures currently being experienced across the world.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I just wish the people delivering the message were less insufferable.
As with many "movements" they pop up when social change is coming anyway, and use incredibly annoying tactics that alienate a lot of people, then claim credit for the change.
1 -
The best way to change for the better is to consume less of everything and live simpler lives. However, no-one makes money out of that and no-one in power benefits.
The idea that electric cars are the future is ludicrous when their batteries have a lifespan of c 10 years and are made with ‘rare earth minerals’. Now why doesn’t that phrase alone cause alarm bells to ring?4 -
EVs are one of those things where we've got an opportunity for a complete life cycle, where old car batteries will be recycled or reconditioned as home energy storage units.
As for mining, think we’ll likely see a move away from those materials in batteries over time. But an EV becomes carbon neutral in 5,000 miles, so they'll be a long term benefit0 -
Nature can help us to heal the planet, but not enough is being done to reverse the decline in species in this country and across the world.
We can all help nature by growing pollinating plants, leaving parts of our gardens for wild flowers. If you only have a balcony, a few pots of nectar rich flowers can help bees and butterflies.
Paving over gardens is not good for nature and makes flooding a bigger problem. In the recent storms my next door neighbour's garden was flooded near to her house, as the rain ran down her sloping block paved drive. We didn't experience the same flooding as we have a gravel drive and the water soaked straight through it into the ground.
We can't keep building huge housing estates on agricultural land. We need to grow food locally and not transport food across the world. Having trade deals to import food from countries like Australia is madness, when we can produce it here. Instead we are pandering to greedy farmers and landowners who want to make money by turning their land into housing. We should be bringing empty properties back into use for housing and the move to home working will leave lots of empty office blocks free to turn into apartments.
Flood plains shouldn't be built on as they are nature's way of absorbing water in times of heavy rainfall.
https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/tackle-climate-change/climate-change-stories/how-nature-can-help-heal-our-planet/
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/what-we-do/combatting-climate-and-nature-emergency
4 -
I’m sorry but the the buy habits of the rich is no barometer to measure climate change or the effects it will bring.ValleyOfTears said:charltonkeston said:I doubt we will change our attitudes much in the coming years until it is really is too late to do anything worthwhile. It’s all very well pointing at developing countries and telling them the errors of their ways but we are the ones who have transferred everything from industries to lifestyle. At the same time we all, including us and the developing world, want more of everything. Something will have to give and as humans have demonstrated throughout history we are very nasty. Just wait until various highly populated areas of the world become unable to support life either through heat or rising water. 20 people in an inflatable gets people in this country ready to send in the navy to defend us.
At some point in the not to distant future disaster awaits life on this planet.
CK: You are right we all want more of everything. THAT needs to change. But imminent disaster? There is no evidence of this. And, if there was and the fens were indeed facing flooding and ruin don't you think every millionaire in Cambridgeshire (there are many!) Would have run to the hills in their droves by now? But none have. Nor have the rich and clued up in all low lying areas. Why? Because there is no imminent danger.
Follow the house buying habits of the rich. If THEY aren't shifting then neither should you worry..
The rich are no better informed or forward thinking than the poor, probably just more able to change their lot. When you see the poor running for the hills I will guarantee there’ll be no room left the rich will already be there
As a bit of an aside, the millionaire bit, there are lots people who if you totalled their net worth fall into that description nowadays especially in the south east England. I live in an area chockablock with paper millionaires, they ain’t nothing special in forward thinking department.
.1 -
Except the tech to recycle the car batteries or to replace the ‘rare earth minerals’ doesn’t exist yet, does it?Rothko said:EVs are one of those things where we've got an opportunity for a complete life cycle, where old car batteries will be recycled or reconditioned as home energy storage units.
As for mining, think we’ll likely see a move away from those materials in batteries over time. But an EV becomes carbon neutral in 5,000 miles, so they'll be a long term benefit
I read it was nearer 50,000 miles. Guess a lot also depends on how the electricity for charging the vehicles is generated?0 -
The myth is 50k, the reality is about a years drivingWeegie Addick said:o
Except the tech to recycle the car batteries or to replace the ‘rare earth minerals’ doesn’t exist yet, does it?Rothko said:EVs are one of those things where we've got an opportunity for a complete life cycle, where old car batteries will be recycled or reconditioned as home energy storage units.
As for mining, think we’ll likely see a move away from those materials in batteries over time. But an EV becomes carbon neutral in 5,000 miles, so they'll be a long term benefit
I read it was nearer 50,000 miles. Guess a lot also depends on how the electricity for charging the vehicles is generated?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment
0 -
OK, thanks. That report does not say a year it says 60% less emissions than a combustion engine over its lifetime in US/Europe- and far less in China/India. It also says it is based on the vehicle having a lifespan of 18 years. I didn’t think the batteries lasted that long?Rothko said:
The myth is 50k, the reality is about a years drivingWeegie Addick said:o
Except the tech to recycle the car batteries or to replace the ‘rare earth minerals’ doesn’t exist yet, does it?Rothko said:EVs are one of those things where we've got an opportunity for a complete life cycle, where old car batteries will be recycled or reconditioned as home energy storage units.
As for mining, think we’ll likely see a move away from those materials in batteries over time. But an EV becomes carbon neutral in 5,000 miles, so they'll be a long term benefit
I read it was nearer 50,000 miles. Guess a lot also depends on how the electricity for charging the vehicles is generated?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment
To be clear, I am not a climate change denier but I am sceptical of the motives of many of the pushed solutions which are still based on increasing consumption and capitalism. We should be walking, cycling and using public transport more.0 -
Most big companies will give between a 7-10 year warranty on a batteries, so they have better faith in what they can do now.Weegie Addick said:
OK, thanks. That report does not say a year it says 60% less emissions than a combustion engine over its lifetime in US/Europe- and far less in China/India. It also says it is based on the vehicle having a lifespan of 18 years. I didn’t think the batteries lasted that long?Rothko said:
The myth is 50k, the reality is about a years drivingWeegie Addick said:o
Except the tech to recycle the car batteries or to replace the ‘rare earth minerals’ doesn’t exist yet, does it?Rothko said:EVs are one of those things where we've got an opportunity for a complete life cycle, where old car batteries will be recycled or reconditioned as home energy storage units.
As for mining, think we’ll likely see a move away from those materials in batteries over time. But an EV becomes carbon neutral in 5,000 miles, so they'll be a long term benefit
I read it was nearer 50,000 miles. Guess a lot also depends on how the electricity for charging the vehicles is generated?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment
To be clear, I am not a climate change denier but I am sceptical of the motives of many of the pushed solutions which are still based on increasing consumption and capitalism. We should be walking, cycling and using public transport more.
We do need an honest conversation about this, if you want lower emissions then you need to accept this as a trade off, same with how we produce energy, and especially nuclear, and that people will need to make sacrifices on what they expect now if they want a planet that is liveable on1 -
CK: we are actually saying the same thing in a roundabout way. It is not that the rich grasp the apparent "end of the world by climate catastrophe" thing more than the poor. But whenever difficulties arise the rich generally are always in a position of relocatability (I think I've just invented a Dowie-word!) and "choice". My point is, if indeed the world is about to end , such persons would be buying the houses on the hill. I don't see this is happening. And in our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren I don't see this happening.charltonkeston said:
I’m sorry but the the buy habits of the rich is no barometer to measure climate change or the effects it will bring.ValleyOfTears said:charltonkeston said:I doubt we will change our attitudes much in the coming years until it is really is too late to do anything worthwhile. It’s all very well pointing at developing countries and telling them the errors of their ways but we are the ones who have transferred everything from industries to lifestyle. At the same time we all, including us and the developing world, want more of everything. Something will have to give and as humans have demonstrated throughout history we are very nasty. Just wait until various highly populated areas of the world become unable to support life either through heat or rising water. 20 people in an inflatable gets people in this country ready to send in the navy to defend us.
At some point in the not to distant future disaster awaits life on this planet.
CK: You are right we all want more of everything. THAT needs to change. But imminent disaster? There is no evidence of this. And, if there was and the fens were indeed facing flooding and ruin don't you think every millionaire in Cambridgeshire (there are many!) Would have run to the hills in their droves by now? But none have. Nor have the rich and clued up in all low lying areas. Why? Because there is no imminent danger.
Follow the house buying habits of the rich. If THEY aren't shifting then neither should you worry..
The rich are no better informed or forward thinking than the poor, probably just more able to change their lot. When you see the poor running for the hills I will guarantee there’ll be no room left the rich will already be there
As a bit of an aside, the millionaire bit, there are lots people who if you totalled their net worth fall into that description nowadays especially in the south east England. I live in an area chockablock with paper millionaires, they ain’t nothing special in forward thinking department.
.
What I DO see happening NOW is 3 million people in this country on foodbank vouchers and the only answer anyone has for them is "here, have more tins of beans". Throwing a beach ball to the drowning man. For such people "climate catastrophe" is here and now.
Once upon a time we prided ourselves on doing what was right for our fellow man. Now we concentrate on what is right for "climate change". Until that changes, the poor man's attitude to so-called "climate change" will never change.1 - Sponsored links:
-
If we don't do something about climate change there will be no fellow man, rich or poor.ValleyOfTears said:
CK: we are actually saying the same thing in a roundabout way. It is not that the rich grasp the apparent "end of the world by climate catastrophe" thing more than the poor. But whenever difficulties arise the rich generally are always in a position of relocatability (I think I've just invented a Dowie-word!) and "choice". My point is, if indeed the world is about to end , such persons would be buying the houses on the hill. I don't see this is happening. And in our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren I don't see this happening.charltonkeston said:
I’m sorry but the the buy habits of the rich is no barometer to measure climate change or the effects it will bring.ValleyOfTears said:charltonkeston said:I doubt we will change our attitudes much in the coming years until it is really is too late to do anything worthwhile. It’s all very well pointing at developing countries and telling them the errors of their ways but we are the ones who have transferred everything from industries to lifestyle. At the same time we all, including us and the developing world, want more of everything. Something will have to give and as humans have demonstrated throughout history we are very nasty. Just wait until various highly populated areas of the world become unable to support life either through heat or rising water. 20 people in an inflatable gets people in this country ready to send in the navy to defend us.
At some point in the not to distant future disaster awaits life on this planet.
CK: You are right we all want more of everything. THAT needs to change. But imminent disaster? There is no evidence of this. And, if there was and the fens were indeed facing flooding and ruin don't you think every millionaire in Cambridgeshire (there are many!) Would have run to the hills in their droves by now? But none have. Nor have the rich and clued up in all low lying areas. Why? Because there is no imminent danger.
Follow the house buying habits of the rich. If THEY aren't shifting then neither should you worry..
The rich are no better informed or forward thinking than the poor, probably just more able to change their lot. When you see the poor running for the hills I will guarantee there’ll be no room left the rich will already be there
As a bit of an aside, the millionaire bit, there are lots people who if you totalled their net worth fall into that description nowadays especially in the south east England. I live in an area chockablock with paper millionaires, they ain’t nothing special in forward thinking department.
.
What I DO see happening NOW is 3 million people in this country on foodbank vouchers and the only answer anyone has for them is "here, have more tins of beans". Throwing a beach ball to the drowning man. For such people "climate catastrophe" is here and now.
Once upon a time we prided ourselves on doing what was right for our fellow man. Now we concentrate on what is right for "climate change". Until that changes, the poor man's attitude to so-called "climate change" will never change.0 -
I can't be bothered engaging with people so far gone.
Not dealing with climate change will have a disproportionate effect on the poor either here, be it they are the ones in housing least adaptable, or the cost of food and heating are so high, or in the global south, where the effects will be the most marked, and the migration crisis which will flow from that.
But ya know, some nutter on youtube knows better9 -
I agree with everything you say, but we can't give up on people. This journey requires the vast, vast majority of people to be on board.Rothko said:I can't be bothered engaging with people so far gone.
Not dealing with climate change will have a disproportionate effect on the poor either here, be it they are the ones in housing least adaptable, or the cost of food and heating are so high, or in the global south, where the effects will be the most marked, and the migration crisis which will flow from that.
But ya know, some nutter on youtube knows better
I think with the environment, everyone has a lightbulb moment (where they hopefully turn the lights off), we have to engage with people.0 -
It’s going to be extremes of weather and unprecedented periods of excessive temperatures, of drought, high winds and rain and floods that are going to be the leading edge of climate change. We’re already seeing all of those phenomena right now in 2021. Having the wherewithal to up sticks and move won’t be of any help. Eventually large areas of what are now fertile and populous land will become barren and empty. The world won’t be able to feed itself and populations will collapse to a manageable level of local self sustainability. Major re boot for mankind and looking at how we run the planet now I think it’s 100% inevitable. We’ll see most of that within 100 years in my opinion.2
-
Huskaris said:
I think the vast majority can be brought on the journey, there are some in the Piers Corbyn rabbit hole who never will.
I agree with everything you say, but we can't give up on people. This journey requires the vast, vast majority of people to be on board.Rothko said:I can't be bothered engaging with people so far gone.
Not dealing with climate change will have a disproportionate effect on the poor either here, be it they are the ones in housing least adaptable, or the cost of food and heating are so high, or in the global south, where the effects will be the most marked, and the migration crisis which will flow from that.
But ya know, some nutter on youtube knows better
I think with the environment, everyone has a lightbulb moment (where they hopefully turn the lights off), we have to engage with people.
I also really believe politicians need to be honest, that greening the economy isn't a bountiful industrial revolution of jobs, and that there are some really hard choices we’re going to have to make already being described as the ‘new Europe in the Tory Party.1 -
I didn't use that to win the argument, I used the explanations above it. I used the Nazis to mock your banal statements, which were incorrect in every regard, and to directly compare you to anyone who buries their head in the sand to deny an evil because they don't want to face the truth.ValleyOfTears said:
Jonniesta:Jonniesta said:
Well, that's wrong. Global warming causes climate change, it is the increase in temperature as a result of human activity.ValleyOfTears said:They called it "global warming" and found that the global temperature was actually cooling!!
So they returned to the drawing board and went with "climate change". An impossible slogan to ever quibble with. Of course there is climate change. Weather ...alters! Who knew?
Now let's get on with our lives. (Including that vacuous scandinavian reptile Grotty Beefburg.)
Weather alters, yes, climate shouldn't... not to this extent and certainly not over a period of 150 years. But ours is changing more rapidly than in the history of the life-supporting planet.
Get on with our lives, fine, but know that some people in this world won't be able to, and future generations will find it even harder.
Greta Thunberg vacuous for having a view and trying to make a positive change? Strange viewpoint.
"Of course there is a Nazi empire, leaders alter, who knew? Get on with our lives and let him take Europe"
It is agreed among those able to debate around the world in virtually every debating chamber that when one introduces "Hitler" "Nazis" etc .to "win" the argument, The debater is publically conceding they have no point to argue any more.
I just thought I would gently share that with you to spare you any future embarrassment.0 -
I wonder though if they need to campaign at that level - it's the macro level that will make the difference after all. A commitment to new types of energy production, climate science innovation, etc - all appealing, especially when the potential for new jobs etc is there. Those kinds of things really could make a difference, especially where plants etc. were repurposed. What with Brexit and Covid, our economy is in massive need of a boost, and increasing our production through these industries might yet be part of the answer, one that we'd all benefit from much more tangibly than the perception of an avoided long term problem.JamesSeed said:Politicians are really mainly concerned about winning elections. Promising to implement the sort of changes needed to reduce climate change is unlikely to be an election winning formula. Even if an election was won with a proper green agenda the effects of any changes wouldn’t be felt in that parliament’s lifetime, so many would feel their sacrifices (reduced travel, higher taxes, less meat etc) wouldn’t have been worth it, leaving the door open for a non green government (populist) to win next time.The only hope would be moving to a proportional representation system where governments would be more likely to be progressive than ‘populist’, with the green vote, and therefore influence, rising as a result.Thought I’d add a couple of more optimistic elements though.Sustainable cities can be built, even against a backdrop of rising temperatures. This one in Dubai (less a city, more a district) is a model for what can be done if there’s a will:
https://youtu.be/WCKz8ykyI2E
Then there’s the fear that large parts of the world will be uninhabitable because of the lack of water. However, these Israeli scientists have found a way to extract water from the air on a large scale.
https://youtu.be/8fQRnM4-4W40 -
Hydrogen's the future, but I have a feeling that will go the way of the everlasting light bulb.Weegie Addick said:The best way to change for the better is to consume less of everything and live simpler lives. However, no-one makes money out of that and no-one in power benefits.
The idea that electric cars are the future is ludicrous when their batteries have a lifespan of c 10 years and are made with ‘rare earth minerals’. Now why doesn’t that phrase alone cause alarm bells to ring?2 -
I do wonder if both a boiler and car scrapping scheme will happen this year to pump up the economy.rikofold said:
I wonder though if they need to campaign at that level - it's the macro level that will make the difference after all. A commitment to new types of energy production, climate science innovation, etc - all appealing, especially when the potential for new jobs etc is there. Those kinds of things really could make a difference, especially where plants etc. were repurposed. What with Brexit and Covid, our economy is in massive need of a boost, and increasing our production through these industries might yet be part of the answer, one that we'd all benefit from much more tangibly than the perception of an avoided long term problem.JamesSeed said:Politicians are really mainly concerned about winning elections. Promising to implement the sort of changes needed to reduce climate change is unlikely to be an election winning formula. Even if an election was won with a proper green agenda the effects of any changes wouldn’t be felt in that parliament’s lifetime, so many would feel their sacrifices (reduced travel, higher taxes, less meat etc) wouldn’t have been worth it, leaving the door open for a non green government (populist) to win next time.The only hope would be moving to a proportional representation system where governments would be more likely to be progressive than ‘populist’, with the green vote, and therefore influence, rising as a result.Thought I’d add a couple of more optimistic elements though.Sustainable cities can be built, even against a backdrop of rising temperatures. This one in Dubai (less a city, more a district) is a model for what can be done if there’s a will:
https://youtu.be/WCKz8ykyI2E
Then there’s the fear that large parts of the world will be uninhabitable because of the lack of water. However, these Israeli scientists have found a way to extract water from the air on a large scale.
https://youtu.be/8fQRnM4-4W4
Will speed up the switch to EVs for many.0 -
It may offer replacement jobs though, at least in some sectors. But only if we commit and seek to lead in innovation. We might already be behind the curve on that, I concede.Rothko said:Huskaris said:
I think the vast majority can be brought on the journey, there are some in the Piers Corbyn rabbit hole who never will.
I agree with everything you say, but we can't give up on people. This journey requires the vast, vast majority of people to be on board.Rothko said:I can't be bothered engaging with people so far gone.
Not dealing with climate change will have a disproportionate effect on the poor either here, be it they are the ones in housing least adaptable, or the cost of food and heating are so high, or in the global south, where the effects will be the most marked, and the migration crisis which will flow from that.
But ya know, some nutter on youtube knows better
I think with the environment, everyone has a lightbulb moment (where they hopefully turn the lights off), we have to engage with people.
I also really believe politicians need to be honest, that greening the economy isn't a bountiful industrial revolution of jobs, and that there are some really hard choices we’re going to have to make already being described as the ‘new Europe in the Tory Party.0
