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
Printable View
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
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
It's already here; it's happening right now.
[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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Overpopulation Is Still a Huge Problem: An Interview with Jane O’Sullivan
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...ane-osullivan/
THE OVERPOPULATION PROJECT
https://mahb.stanford.edu/breaking-n...ation-project/
Are you endorsing their policy ideas, or is this another link you didn't bother to read past the heading? They seem to think it's not just about population. https://mahb.stanford.edu/ideas-for-action/
Attachment 1450728
The Overpopulation project is a neo-Malthusian organization. The link below offers a different perspective, though the author is, I believe, wrong to cite sources that claim the world's population will be c12 billion by 2100, as most demographers believe the world's population will peak at c10 billion, and that there will be a gradual decline from 2050 onwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
That said, he makes a telling point, which is of some importance given the position in the US where Trump and his backers are opposed to family planning and the empowerment of women, thus-
"The first way to look at population is as a pure numbers game. More people means more consumers and more emitters, so the thing to do is slow the rise of population. Specifically, since most of the new people are going to come from poor or developing countries, the question is specifically how to slow population growth there.Luckily, we know the answer. It is family planning that enables women to have only children they want and choose, and education of girls, giving them access to income opportunities outside the home. We know that women, given the resources and the choice, will opt for smaller families.
Those are the two most powerful levers to bend the population curve. They are also, in and of themselves, an enormously powerful climate policy. When Paul Hawken and his team investigated and ranked carbon-reduction solutions for their Drawdown project, they found that the combination of the two (call it the female-empowerment package) carried the most potential to reduce greenhouse gases later this century, out of any solution. (Together they could prevent 120 gigatons of GHGs by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind combined.)"
I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why. - Vox
This is behind a paywall but looks interesting-
Meet the New Population-Control Movement - The Atlantic
It's happening already. There's a bunch of recent cases where tourists in Greece have died while walking in very hot conditions, most notably Michael Mosley.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ar...and-near-corfu
More on the dangers of excessive heat
https://www.vox.com/climate/354977/h...rature-climate
This is a big problem:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress:
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress | US Congress | The Guardian
On the one hand there has been negative attitudes to Nuclear Fusion, that it always seems to be 30 years away from becoming the energy revolution that will halt the worst aspects of Climate Change, and propel humankind into a new future...
Is the dream of nuclear fusion dead? Why the international experimental reactor is in ‘big trouble’ | Energy | The Guardian
On the other hand, it is also being claimed that the uses of what we currently know about and can use in Nuclear Fusion research has positive applications, though it doesn't seem to be directly connected to climate change issues. I think the key might be the investment promising returns, if profit is the key driver of the research, thus
Fusion power might be 30 years away but we will reap its benefits well before | Physics | The Guardian
Climate Crisis Is the Defining Issue of Our Time. Where Was It at the Debate?
Climate Crisis Is the Defining Issue of Our Time. Where Was It at the Debate? | Truthout
And there's $$$ in climate change solutions as well. Those folks are getting rich off clean energy just as the fossil fuel folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
the chicoms and India produce more pollution the the US, Canada and Europe Combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
US emissions per capita are still much higher, so China and India could equally say why should we do anything if a rich country like the USA won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
It's a disingenuous argument anyway, because nobody is saying the US should act alone. The whole point is to have an international agreement for all countries to reduce emissions, and that's what Trump wants to pull out of.
Look in the mirror when you make that statement. The US and Europe are the cleanest energy producers in the world. China does not produce anywhere near the energy that the US does yet they have a much higher level of pollution. They IMPORT most of their fuel, and it's not cleanly produced. You are the one being disingenuous .Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
How much of that is due to policies that Republicans opposed and intend to reverse? Any reduction in emissions intensity has been due to increased energy efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels, and the US hasn't gone nearly as far as Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
We're talking about climate change here, and burning fossil fuels produces CO2. There is no such thing as non-polluting oil or coal, regardless of where it comes from.
When you all walk or pedal a bicycle to work and everywhere else and grow all your own food in your yard, then you can complain about CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Europe paid dearly for their over reliance on non-carbon energy (and their over reliance on natgas from russia) when the ruskies invaded Ukraine.
Are you people even living here in the US? I know stavros is not. If not, please correct your own internal issues before denigrating the US, and if you live in western Europe, go visit a US or WW1 or WW2 cemetery to refresh your memory on what language you would be speaking if it was not for US. If you live in eastern Europe go visit a death camp memorial to see what would have been all over everywhere if not for US.
This is just the end of the last ice age. This rock has gone through many changes in the last 4 billion years and will continue to do so.
Are you saying human beings have had no impact on Planet Earth? None at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
The problem is that humans have only existed for tiny fraction of that time, and CO2 levels are already above any seen in that period.Quote:
Originally Posted by tslvr
https://earth.org/data_visualization...istory-of-co2/
Yes, the earth and some forms of life will continue, but that doesn't mean that we will. Many species have become extinct due to climatic changes they were unable to adapt to (eg dinosaurs).
Even if we are able to survive it may be a very difficult existence. In the past people could just move to a cooler environment, but that's going to be almost impossible due to national borders and a far bigger population.
I always find it ironic when 'do nothingers' say that people in future will adjust, even though they are refusing to make any adjustments themselves.
Gasoline is now down 26 cents / gal from last Tuesday. Still too high (and the 110 Octane I need for my DVC is over $10 / gal), but we will get back to 2019 levels soon enough, and that WILL lower prices on Everything that needs to be shipped around the planet.
Europe will now take steps to import US NatGas instead of ruisian exports.
Seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
Where does the EU’s gas come from? - Consilium
This reminds me of Rupert Murdoch's prediction that the Iraq invasion would lead to oil prices falling to $20 a barrel. In fact, they ended up rising as high as $140.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
As some wise person said, "Never make predictions, especially about the future".
so,,,,, they are STILL buying it from the ruskies!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I suggest you write to your King and his Prince, who both seem to have a direct line to Vladimir Putin that they use on a regular basis, or maybe it's ok for you Americans to fist the Russians while you complain that Europeans get barely 3% of their gas resources from Russia, presumably because they are foolish enough to honour contracts that were signed before Trump and Musk's boyfriend went rogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
It wasn't always 3% and russian oil is still exported into europe as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I don't have a king, and neither does any US citizen. we took care of that about 250 years ago.
Gasoline here was about 99 cents / gal for permium back in 2003. I had two cars that Required premium fuel, so I remember that quite well. Then when o took over it shot up to some $4 / gal, then back down under Trump to about $1.85 / gal, then to nearly $5 / gal under the demented dolt, and it's still more than $1.25 higher then back at the end of 2019. These are FL prices, not CA where it was $1.5-$2.5 higher. I still have one car that Requires premium 93 octane plus 2-3 gallons per tank of 110 octane just to run it safely. The other 3 cars run better on premium, but won't damage themselves on regular (87 octane).
Yeah, 4 cars, and only because I can't fit 5.
Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say
Loyalists selected for important roles have offered staunch support to fossil fuels and downplayed climate crisis:
Climate denial a unifying theme of Trump’s cabinet picks, experts say | Climate crisis | The Guardian
On the other side of the ugly 2 party bird, there's this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Addressing Modern Slavery In The Clean Energy Sector
https://assets.cleanenergycouncil.or...rgy-Sector.pdf
And contrary to what's being portrayed, NO ONE is doing it for the good of planet - they're doing it to get rich.....
The 10 Richest Green Energy Billionaires In 2021
https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/bil...naires-in-2021
Do you think it's going to help if the US abandons clean energy and leaves China to dominate the market? https://www.politico.com/news/2024/1...na-us-00191049Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Unless you are proposing to do away with capitalism, the issue isn't whether people make money. It's whether they make money out of things that adversely affect the rest of society.
We are not abandoning clean energy. Our energy production is orders of magnitude clean than china and india.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2