Climate change, do we give a fudge?

Do we care ?

  • Greta thunberg , yup the earth is dying you morons .

    Votes: 89 65.9%
  • Al Gore , I can make a living as the earth is dying , morons.

    Votes: 12 8.9%
  • Trump , fudge the earth , I'm alright Jack , as the we continue to build sh*te

    Votes: 12 8.9%
  • Boris , I'm with Trump, or whatever ...comes next .

    Votes: 8 5.9%
  • Putin , we make the rules , we own all

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • China , yeah right mate , bring it on.

    Votes: 13 9.6%

  • Total voters
    135
So basically, what's the point of the UK crippling itself financially to reduce carbon emissions when the USA and China aren't going to do anything? I'm all for stopping the overuse of plastic, reducing pollution and anything else that might help like subsidising electric vehicles. But when you look at this chart, the most sensible thing we can do is divert all those billions into preparing for the inevitable - flood defences being top of the list.

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
union-concerned-scientists-emissions-pie-chart_0.png
You have to put that into perspective. It's not reasonable to simply compare China's 1.4 billion people with the UK's 67 million and say China's worse than us because they produce more CO2. A better indication is CO2 emissions per head of population.

And in fact the same (excellent) website gives those figures.

CO2 by Country

Saudi Arabia and Australia are the worst, with 16 tonnes per head. Then the USA and Canada at 15. Russia, Japan and Germany are at about 9. China is 12th at 6.4, and the UK 13th at 5.6.

So it is unfair on China simply to single them out because they produce more CO2 than everybody else. In fact, although they are building coal-fired stations at an impressive rate, they are trying hard to limit emissions. Their rate of growth is slowing, and is forecast to peak within a decade or so, if not sooner.

The ones to watch are India and Indonesia, at only 1.6 or so at present. They are huge countries and bid fair to grow their economies at a fast rate. They will need support from the rest of the world to ensure they can manage emissions whilst doing so.

Global pollution is a global problem, and we must all do our bit. The real villain of the piece at the moment is the USA. In fact, I really don't think their attitude will last very long, but even if it does, they will simply see themselves being left behind and have to pay expensive catch-up later.
 
Coal powered power stations in the US are closing, renewables are simply cheaper.
Add natural gas (again cheaper than coal) to fill in gaps in renewables.
 
You have to put that into perspective. It's not reasonable to simply compare China's 1.4 billion people with the UK's 67 million and say China's worse than us because they produce more CO2. A better indication is CO2 emissions per head of population.

And in fact the same (excellent) website gives those figures.

CO2 by Country

Saudi Arabia and Australia are the worst, with 16 tonnes per head. Then the USA and Canada at 15. Russia, Japan and Germany are at about 9. China is 12th at 6.4, and the UK 13th at 5.6.

So it is unfair on China simply to single them out because they produce more CO2 than everybody else. In fact, although they are building coal-fired stations at an impressive rate, they are trying hard to limit emissions. Their rate of growth is slowing, and is forecast to peak within a decade or so, if not sooner.

The ones to watch are India and Indonesia, at only 1.6 or so at present. They are huge countries and bid fair to grow their economies at a fast rate. They will need support from the rest of the world to ensure they can manage emissions whilst doing so.

Global pollution is a global problem, and we must all do our bit. The real villain of the piece at the moment is the USA. In fact, I really don't think their attitude will last very long, but even if it does, they will simply see themselves being left behind and have to pay expensive catch-up later.

My point is, in the foreseeable future, any CO2 reduction the UK manages to achieve will be dwarfed by the rest of the world, which we can do nothing about. therefore we should be preparing for the inevitable flooding rather than spending all our resources on cutting CO2. When we are prepared we can then adjust our priorities.

In other words, when you hear the siren it's time to get in the bunker, not start a campaign for nuclear disarmament.

image.jpg

0_121119-David-Humphries.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
The consensus here seems to be that it's preparing for a case of "when" not "if". Which in turn shows that the sentiment from most appears to be that we're too late to do anything to reverse what's happening (well not that a "reversal" is feasible anyway).

For me even trying to slow it down is going to be too little too late. What's gonna happen is inevitable now, and I fear that most will remain too nonchalant over the effects.
 
Maybe a good start would be removing VAT from Energy saving materials,not increasing it :confused:

But even that has its problems. There was a report last week showing how hundreds of extra people had died during the last heatwave simply due to their houses being too well insulated. It cited one of those new 'Eco' buildings in London that are so well insulated that during hot weather all the residents now have to have air-conditioners on all the time. :D
 
I will be getting loft insulation done this year so a consideration, hit 35C this year.
 
China is just one issue. A large amount of the planet is in poverty. Gradually they will become industrialised and want the same things we have, heating, air conditioning, cars, holidays, electricity, big TVs whatever.

Do we say they can't have them because of "the planet" while we have them?
 
I will be getting loft insulation done this year so a consideration, hit 35C this year.
Insulation works both ways ;) It can keep heat out, just as well as keeping it in. Insulating your loft can help keep the heat in the loft in the summer rather than it cooking the house, especially in a bungalow which I think you may have?
 
I will be getting loft insulation done this year so a consideration, hit 35C this year.

I did mine myself last weekend. Took me about 8 hours and spent ÂŁ400 all in. Beat the quotes of ÂŁ1000+ I got off various companies. Was hard work though.
 
Insulation works both ways ;) It can keep heat out, just as well as keeping it in. Insulating your loft can help keep the heat in the loft in the summer rather than it cooking the house, especially in a bungalow which I think you may have?
Correct and it will be foam insulation on the inside of the roof rather than fibre on top of the ceiling, hopefully it will help to reduce heating in the summer.
 
There will be no report strong enough , no data overwhelming enough to change anything . We are in a global economy that the big fishes do not and will not accept climate change against economic output .

We fudged .
 
Flybe was going under with lots of job losses.


The government has promised to review the ÂŁ26 air passenger duty that is levied on domestic UK return fights, which has added to the airline's losses.

But the prospect of cutting taxes on flying has angered climate activists who argue that flying is the most carbon intensive mode of transport.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said reducing air passenger duty was "utterly inconsistent with any serious commitment" to tackle climate change.


Air passenger duty was added to discourage people from flying.

So should we have had the job losses and been green or what? Can Emma Thompson fly over with a view?


Dame Emma Thompson has admitted it was hypocritical to fly to a climate change protest, but insists she flies a lot less than she used to.

Aah, flying less than you used to is ok.
 
If you have a spare 12 mins I'd like to recommend watching this as it's very interesting.

Watched this this morning and found it very through provoking with putting things into perspective.

Pause for a moment and think of all the hyped up frenzy in the current media about the OMG shock horror of a sea levels and land.
A few inches here, a few feet there, and stories of almost worlds end for human civilization as we know it.

And consider what's shown in this video to hopefully pull back some level of perspective here on reality and how our short term worries are nothing compared to just the normal state of quite recent changes,

 
If you have a spare 12 mins I'd like to recommend watching this as it's very interesting.

Watched this this morning and found it very through provoking with putting things into perspective.

Pause for a moment and think of all the hyped up frenzy in the current media about the OMG shock horror of a sea levels and land.
A few inches here, a few feet there, and stories of almost worlds end for human civilization as we know it.

And consider what's shown in this video to hopefully pull back some level of perspective here on reality and how our short term worries are nothing compared to just the normal state of quite recent changes,


Fascinating video! Really good stuff.

But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Sure, sea levels have fluctuated dramatically at times; locally, like this event, or globally.

But think of the effect the refilling of the Med would have had on its inhabitants. Imagine what would have happened if there were humans around then, with the equivalents of Venice, Barcelona, Marseilles, etc on the shore lines.

In today's world it wouldn't take much more than a metre or so of sea level rise to inundate population centres with millions of inhabitants. Even London and New York would be at risk. A metre may not sound like much, but add it to 'normal' extreme weather events such as tidal surges and hurricanes, and you get severe problems.

Sure, London and New York could adapt by spending a few $billion on improved defences. But much of Micronesia, Bangladesh, West Africa, the Caribbean, could not.

Global sea level rises, of even a few 10's of cm, are a big worry.
 
Fascinating video! Really good stuff.

But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Sure, sea levels have fluctuated dramatically at times; locally, like this event, or globally.

But think of the effect the refilling of the Med would have had on its inhabitants. Imagine what would have happened if there were humans around then, with the equivalents of Venice, Barcelona, Marseilles, etc on the shore lines.

In today's world it wouldn't take much more than a metre or so of sea level rise to inundate population centres with millions of inhabitants. Even London and New York would be at risk. A metre may not sound like much, but add it to 'normal' extreme weather events such as tidal surges and hurricanes, and you get severe problems.

Sure, London and New York could adapt by spending a few $billion on improved defences. But much of Micronesia, Bangladesh, West Africa, the Caribbean, could not.

Global sea level rises, of even a few 10's of cm, are a big worry.
And there are more humans these days living around the coastal areas so there would be a lot more loss of life.
 
Agreed.....Yet coastal properties continue to rise in value
There's a chronic shortage of housing in the UK and ALL property has increased to silly money. People need somewhere to live now, even if it might not be there in 30 years time.
 
I wasn't just referring to the UK..
Two identical properties,one on the coast and one more inland,which will likely have the most value..

I know there is a housing shortage but if these properties might not be there in 30 years their value should at least remain relatively stagnant compared to inland properties shouldn't they unless that will only happen once the sea is upon the door step..
Just a thought
 
I wasn't just referring to the UK..
Two identical properties,one on the coast and one more inland,which will likely have the most value..

I know there is a housing shortage but if these properties might not be there in 30 years their value should at least remain relatively stagnant compared to inland properties shouldn't they unless that will only happen once the sea is upon the door step..
Just a thought
Where is the evidence to support your claim that coastal properties which are at risk of disappearing are increasing above national averages?
 
Where is the evidence to support your claim that coastal properties which are at risk of disappearing are increasing above national averages?

Well you could look at the example of Dubai - people want ocean front property and they only had a small amount of ocean front - so they built a lot more ocean front to meet demand.
 
Where is the evidence to support your claim that coastal properties which are at risk of disappearing are increasing above national averages?
I don't recall saying coastal properties are increasing above national averages,they may be but i never made that claim...I have no interest in national averages any more than anyone else,you have interest in property you want to buy..
.I questioned why they still continue to rise in value,the same could apply to some farmland as well,,

Only evidence i have is 15 years of actually looking for properties to buy in France or Spain,,,coastal property is largely dearer,,,you could look on a property developers website to see that the closer to the coast you go an identical new build is dearer..

Well you could look at the example of Dubai - people want ocean front property and they only had a small amount of ocean front - so they built a lot more ocean front to meet demand.
Exactly...When the most logical thing to do would be to head for the hills imho
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom