How are we feeling about climate change, (can't be bothered?)?

JimBob1952 said:
I believe in climate change. I don't believe in most of the solutions offered up by climate activists. We're stuck with fossil fuels for a while and it's going to take a long time (longer than 2050) to make the transition to renewables. And no one is really tackling other issues, including deforestation of the Amazon in Brazil.
Click to expand...
Well said!!

And how can we do much about deforestation in the Amazon or elsewhere. We have greatly deforested our own county, kind of hypocritical to ask others to do what we preach not what we do. Same problem with fossil fuel usage, we have long had things like air conditioning and hot water, big power users. How can we now ask the folks in China or India to do without them. Not that they would listen if we did...

One thing that could make a lot more difference than solar or wind is nuclear. Don't hear folks talk about that much!
 

Alligatorob said:
Well said!!

And how can we do much about deforestation in the Amazon or elsewhere. We have greatly deforested our own county, kind of hypocritical to ask others to do what we preach not what we do. Same problem with fossil fuel usage, we have long had things like air conditioning and hot water, big power users. How can we now ask the folks in China or India to do without them. Not that they would listen if we did...

One thing that could make a lot more difference than solar or wind is nuclear. Don't hear folks talk about that much!
Click to expand...

So true about nuclear. Natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal, as well. And a lot of what "the West" talks about contravenes the desires of people in China and India to have basic needs met, just as you said. It's a complex problem, and solving it takes a lot more than yelling about "going green."
 
Irwin said:
We need to get our own house in order before we can tell other countries what to do. Otherwise, we're hypocrites. But once that happens, we can impose sanctions on countries that act irresponsibility.
Click to expand...


Our own house is in order in that our emissions are going down. China's and India's are going up. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
 

Alligatorob said:
Well said!!

And how can we do much about deforestation in the Amazon or elsewhere. We have greatly deforested our own county, kind of hypocritical to ask others to do what we preach not what we do. Same problem with fossil fuel usage, we have long had things like air conditioning and hot water, big power users. How can we now ask the folks in China or India to do without them. Not that they would listen if we did...

One thing that could make a lot more difference than solar or wind is nuclear. Don't hear folks talk about that much!
Click to expand...
There's the whole NIMBY issue with nuclear power: Not in my backyard! And then how do we get rid of nuclear waste? We're to the point where we can safely shoot rockets into space, so we could get rid of it that way... just dump it in space. People are concerned about what would happen if there was an accident, though, even though that risk is miniscule.
 
I'm a bit of a Pessimist when it comes to people/nations doing anything that will substantially reduce the effects of Climate Change. I think we are already at, or very near, the point where Any attempts to change our climate will have little effect. We could spend decades and Trillions trying to transition to solar, wind, electric vehicles, etc., and wind up having little or no real effect on what is surely coming.

Anything we can do toward reducing emissions will certainly be helpful, but unless we want to witness a major collapse of our economies, and societies, "outlawing" fossil fuels, anytime in the foreseeable future, is going to result in chaos.
 
Irwin said:
There's the whole NIMBY issue with nuclear power: Not in my backyard!
Click to expand...
Yep, a big problem.
Irwin said:
And then how do we get rid of nuclear waste?
Click to expand...
There are solutions, but in one way or another all involve long-term storage in some disposal site. They can be made safe, so long as we can do "perpetual" care. We need the political will to do it more than the knowhow.
Irwin said:
what would happen if there was an accident, though, even though that risk is miniscule
Click to expand...
Nuclear power is much safer from the accident perspective than any other power source we use. It just feels terrifying to people. Do you remember the bumper sticker "More people have died in the backseat of Teddy Kennedy's car than from nuclear power accidents"? In the US that is still true.
Don M. said:
Anything we can do toward reducing emissions will certainly be helpful, but unless we want to witness a major collapse of our economies, and societies, "outlawing" fossil fuels, anytime in the foreseeable future, is going to result in chaos.
Click to expand...
I agree... except maybe for the helpful part. I am not sure we will be able to reduce to the point of making much difference.
 
grahamg said:
Anybody getting excited about COP 26?
Click to expand...
I listened to Prince William giving an interview about the forthcoming climate change summit in Glasgow.
Have to admit I didn't listen to all the radio broadcast, as much as I like and admire him, he didn't grab my attention like dear little Greta does on this subject unfortunately! :(
 
COP26 will attract every form of terrorist, anarchist, communist, Eco warrior, God botherer, Flat Earth society nutcase, vegan, tree hugger etc..
They will be faced with thousand of police with tear gas, big sticks and savage dogs. There will be thousands of delegates and tens of thousands of reporters. The whole fiasco will cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds and what will the result be? A load of broken promises and NO change at all.

A total waste of time and money. On the plus side, anyone who has accommodation to rent will make a small fortune, If they're wise, they'll use this to move somewhere with better weather.
 
COP26 will likely turn out to be just another "publicity stunt" to make people think that governments may actually do something. In reality, it would take several decades of virtually NO fossil fuel use to reverse what we are facing. IF there was a sudden ban on fossil fuel use, society and global economics would collapse, and total chaos would reign.
 
Don M. said:
COP26 will likely turn out to be just another "publicity stunt" to make people think that governments may actually do something.
Click to expand...
I agree, I am always particularly skeptical of things like this coming out of the UN...
Don M. said:
In reality, it would take several decades of virtually NO fossil fuel use to reverse what we are facing.
Click to expand...
Yep, I believe we are way past that "tipping point" thing.
Don M. said:
IF there was a sudden ban on fossil fuel use, society and global economics would collapse, and total chaos would reign.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the only predictable effect of banning fossil fuels, but I don't think we have to worry, it just ain't happening.
 
Capt Lightning said:
COP26 will attract every form of terrorist, anarchist, communist, Eco warrior, God botherer, Flat Earth society nutcase, vegan, tree hugger etc..
They will be faced with thousand of police with tear gas, big sticks and savage dogs. There will be thousands of delegates and tens of thousands of reporters. The whole fiasco will cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds and what will the result be? A load of broken promises and NO change at all.
A total waste of time and money. On the plus side, anyone who has accommodation to rent will make a small fortune, If they're wise, they'll use this to move somewhere with better weather.
Click to expand...
A bit pessimistic then,.............., looking on the bright side if anything sensible does come out of it you'll be surprised and that will be a plus to both yourself and maybe the planet, (though I dont mean to indicate I contradict you by my flippancy!). :unsure:
 
Irwin said:
We need to get our own house in order before we can tell other countries what to do. Otherwise, we're hypocrites. But once that happens, we can impose sanctions on countries that act irresponsibility.
Click to expand...
I agree. I also think the concept of nations swapping environmental credits is just a scheme to keep on using pollution producing fuels.
 
Alligatorob said:
Absolutely!
And make lots of money for a bunch of people who will created or contribute nothing good...
Click to expand...
Its all very well us all coming out with cynical and pessimistic viewpoints, (and I'm as bad as anyone), but unless we've got better ideas maybe we'd best keep quiet and listen to those with more knowledge, more future to worry about, and ultimately those who don't dismiss mankind's chances of survival so easily! :(
 
Graham, I think that in this case being cynical and pessimistic = being realistic. The weather forecast can't even get tomorrow's weather correct, so I have very little confidence in what the gloom and doom merchants are telling us. I also think too many of these 'doomsday prophets' happily ignore the improvements that have been made already.
 
Alligatorob said:
I believe there are things we can do, primarily understand as much about climate change as we can and get ready for it.
If we stumble into something along the way that we can do that realistically will work that would be great. I just don't think we should plan on it.
Click to expand...
I believe mankind, (our human nature I mean), has a tendency for "risk taking", and this plays a part in our blaise attitude to a threat likely to become much worse during the lifetime of our children, (you know "those we're supposed to care about more than life itself, and only desire to act in their interests"!).
However, it is just possible common ground can be found between the leadership of nations who cannot often agree, and whose political systems couldn't be more different. All peoples I suspect desire hope for our futures, and even the most sceptical on this forum, if put on the rack and forced to reveal their inner most thoughts, would probably admit they're the same!! :)
 
Here's an interesting tidbit of information:

The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport.​

Nearly all other advanced nations have embraced electric high-speed rail transportation which is far more environmentally friendly than jet airliners since electricity can be generated by clean energy sources. Here in the U.S., we don't have any high-speed rail. Airlines have a lot of political influence and the politicians they've bought won't allow it. While it's a bit hypocritical for us to criticize any other country for not doing their part, they have to understand that it's nothing personal; it's all about corporate profits. Who cares if we're destroying the planet? Money makes the world go round.

But at least we're gradually moving towards e-vehicles and more efficient gasoline vehicles. Our 2013 SUV gets better gas mileage than our 2000 sedan, even though it's bigger and heavier.
 
Some signs the prospects for COP26 may not be improving, (reports in the UK suggest the US administration won't be able to get the changes they wish through congress).

Still, we don't care do we,..., "to hell on a handcart" hey! :)
 
Irwin said:
Climate change is a big conspiracy theory!
(Don't mind me, I'm a sociopath.)
Click to expand...
I hope those world leaders gathering in Glasgow next month get to hear a few funny comments such as yours, to "put them in the mood" for agreeing to something vaguely useful, (like maybe not going to war with one another). :)

This was something the late great broadcaster Sir Terry Wogan said about WWII,..., "none of it was good for the environment", a subtle comment putting into some kind of context the threats the world faces!
 
Daytona Al said:
I agree. The political will to tackle the problem (in even the smallest way) is not there. When prices start doubling the population will vote in a less green candidate. This week, we have seen what happened in the UK with reduction of long haul trucks. The government immediately moved to get them back on the road. This same government is making long range promises to severely reduce fossil fuel usage. But of course, all of those truck are running on fossil fuel. Do you see the contradiction?
Click to expand...
True, They are making electric cars & trucks. Say good for the environment? Ok, now they have to get the power to charge those vehicles somewhere. Most are coal, gas, or Nuclear power plants.

They just said on the news here this morning they are taking a 20,000-acre farm in northern In. to put up a solar farm. Right, where we get a lot of snow & in the winter 75% clouds. So won't get much power from them. The next thing is we are taking 20,000 acres out of farm production. Pretty soon there will be no land to grow crops on to feed us.

I'm 86 & I won't be around that long to see how this works out.
 
"Maybe best not to be around to see how this thing works out"(?).

(at my school they repeatedly told us mankind would destroy itself by 2050, so that was pretty pessimistic wasnt it!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top