Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Ben]

Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations: Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations | Biodiversity | The Guardian

[Stavros]

When Boris Johnson's Parliamentary seat in Uxbridge and South Ruislip was retained by another Conservative, the explanation was that the Londoners in that constituency were registering their opposition to the Mayor of London's Ultra-Low-Emission-Zone policy, because of the costs to drivers living in the area having to pay as they go. And yet, a key aim of the policy has been a success. If anything it exposes the problem even more: policies that work that are unpopular on one level, but succeed in another. Do Londoners -and other urban dwellers around the UK and the world- want less pollution, and cleaner air, or just a few more quid in their pockets -and sick children?

"Sadiq Khan has hailed what he said was remarkable progress in improving London’s air quality under his tenure as mayor, after a study showed roadside pollutant levels falling faster in the city than elsewhere in the UK."
Ulez helped London cut road pollution faster than rest of UK, report says | Air pollution | The Guardian

[Helvis2012]

It's already here; it's happening right now.

[Ben]

‘Tone-deaf’ fossil gas growth in Europe is speeding climate crisis, say activists | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Ben;2085201]‘Tone-deaf’ fossil gas growth in Europe is speeding climate crisis, say activists | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas | Fossil fuels | The Guardian[/QUOTES

Soft targets, are there no other causes of climate change?

[filghy2]

I've no idea why you think it's a soft target, but fossil fuel burning has accounted for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of warming contribution).
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/...climate-change

Yes, there are other sources that also need to be addressed, but it makes obvious sense to focus most attention on fossil fuels.

Perhaps you should leave the 'whataboutism' to Mr Fanti.

[Stavros]

I've no idea why you think it's a soft target, but fossil fuel burning has accounted for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions (in terms of warming contribution).
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/...climate-change

Yes, there are other sources that also need to be addressed, but it makes obvious sense to focus most attention on fossil fuels.

Perhaps you should leave the 'whataboutism' to Mr Fanti.

Soft targets in the sense that it is easy for people in the countries we live in to protest against BP, Shell and Exxon, because they are right here -less easy to focus on Deforestation which is happening in Brazil, Siberia, Indonesia and parts of Africa because they are not right here, and because in most cases we do not have much if any impact on either the Governments, or in the case of Brazil, the people illegally felling the Amazon rain forest to clear the land for livestrock and meat production. While the proportionality might not be in question, this aspect of climate change is surely the most difficult to deal with, precisely because so much of it is out of our control. The environmental devastation of Israel has also been neglected, even though a substantial amount of historic agricultural land has been transformed into concrete. The impact on the world's climate profile might not be great, but within that small area of land, it has been profound.

In any case we always return to the fact that until renewable sources of energy have the capacity and the efficiency to replace fossil fuels, they will continue to dominate. So I hope that clarifies the 'whataboutery' you refer to, and at least I do try to answer the question unlike a certain person on these boards.

[filghy2]

As with any problem, it makes sense for countries to focus on things within their control that they can feasibly do something about. There's still much more that can be done in our own countries - the main barrier is political will. If it's difficult enough for climate campaigners to influence their own governments what would be the point in shifting their attention to other governments that are even harder to influence?

I think you are being too pessimistic about the capacity for renewables to replace fossil fuels. Technology in this area is advancing rapidly, though it depends a lot on government policy to give it a push along. There is also scope to do a lot more on energy efficiency.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/...ewables-ember/

There's an old and wise saying that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Even if we can't fix every part of the problem we can still make substantial progress that makes a difference. Too much pessimism on this plays into the hands of the 'donothingists'.

[Stavros]

I agree, it is just that I often get frustrated with the attacks on the oil companies, particularly what I think of as the counter-productive antic of Extinction Rebellion and other 'direct action' tactics, because there is so much more to this problem. If I am pessimistic on one level, it is because the anti Climate Change activists in media outlets like Murdoch's (utterly dire0 TalkTV or GB News, with the Telegraph leading the way, have latched on to public discontent, in London at least, with the costs of Ultra-Low Emission Zones, even though the data shows that London's air has improved since they were introduced. That is not to say London has clean air, I was there with a friend on Sunday and she remarked on how different it is from the town she lives in on the continent, albeit not close to any industry. The focus on costs when money is tight does not require much energy, but it does sap the longer term strategy, with now Labour appearing to roll back parts of its commitments to the Net Zero pledges Govt has made.

So even where we do have a direct impact, it looks like at the political level it will not have much impact, as, if Labour does form the next Govt, it will inherit a mess yet take a tame approach to policy and not achieve much, as the inability to achieve anything of lasting importance seems to be the common experience of government these days.

One can only hope the technology moves beyond the political to offer cost effective solutions.

[filghy2]

I share your scepticism about some of the tactics of climate activists. I can never understand why they think people will be won over by annoying stunts like throwing substances at artworks. That seems to be more about making themselves feel righteous. But I don't think the whole climate movement should be equated with the radical fringe.