adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,008 
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 30, 2019 16:56:30 GMT
If the UK is going to be successful on climate change, I think they're going to need all-party support. They can't even agree within each of the main parties on what day of the week it is, let alone cross-party on anything important.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Apr 30, 2019 17:25:47 GMT
if we are to believe the protesters are really middle class(and then probably have some money) hopefully they will have given up their investments in funds from the like's of Fundsmith at the top of the tree all the way down to passive trackers and also their pension funds that are invested in oil,energy,tobacco etc or in emission leading countries.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 30, 2019 17:28:55 GMT
if we are to believe the protesters are really middle class(and then probably have some money) hopefully they will have given up their investments in funds from the like's of Fundsmith at the top of the tree all the way down to passive trackers and also their pension funds that are invested in oil,energy,tobacco etc or in emission leading countries. I was waiting for someone from the media to ask the crowd "where are you going on your next holiday" to see how many would say "I'm flying to XXX to attend a conference on climate change" (or simply "I'm flying to XXX"). Bit like Emma Thompson and Prince Charles who fly places, then tell people it's bad for the environment to....fly places.
Just been reading something that said the world's population was 'only' 2.5 billion in 1950. We'd have a much smaller climate change problem if it had stayed at that figure.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,008
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 30, 2019 17:44:32 GMT
Just been reading something that said the world's population was 'only' 2.5 billion in 1950. We'd have a much smaller climate change problem if it had stayed at that figure. Strangely, the decades between 1910-1920 and 1940-1950 have shown the lowest population growth... And about the only time the world's population has fallen was during the 14th century. World wars and plagues are generally thought to be bad things, however. As for the increases during the latter half of the 20th century - well, we're back to modern medicine and famine relief being rather good at stopping large numbers of people dying young, people being rather fond of fornication, and contraception being either poorly available or reportedly frowned on by 'im upstairs. It's not a terribly helpful combination for reducing the global population...
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 30, 2019 17:55:50 GMT
I’m afraid after brexit, trump, expenses scandals, measuring countries success by GDP, various forms of racism by both sides, etc I can’t see me ever voting for them again. I have children who I want to have a future so I shall be voting green at every election regardless of tactical voting or likelihood of them getting in. At one fell swoop all my agonising has gone and my conscience is gloriously clear. One of the reasons I can't see the majority of people voting Green is that they're in favour of the EU and freedom of movement. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but won't appeal to a big chunk of Leavers and doesn't do much for limiting CO2 emissions unless/until we really get on top of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 18:17:59 GMT
 . If its the latter then fine, but still think its dangerous to insult other scientists who have a different opinion. I am not saying climate change isn't happening or the consensus of scientists is wrong, I have no idea, but I do think that its probably easier, and better paid, if as a scientist you follow the established line in this area. As I said its a complex area of science and for us to just not allow debate in the area I feel doesn't help anybody. Good you are not saying that climate change is not happening.
Does that mean that you are saying that climate change is happening? If so you line up with the massive majority of scientists in the world.
While the climate is complex the science of global warming is actually pretty simple. I honestly suggest do take a short MOOC, ideas are above. To get a basic understanding a 12 week course requiring only 8 hours a week would let you see the basic science and understand the options.
I am more than happy to allow debate, but, in such a significant issue, it would be nice if it were informed debate. Frankly I find the idea of debate without education just tiring. (see also Brexit).
The options are simple, various gases of which CO2 is the most common but not the most potent help trap heat from the sun within the atmosphere. This seems to lead to increased water warming hence melting ice sheets and increasing the capacity of the oceans to hold CO2 and hence water. This sounds like a virtous circle however there is no further reaction H2O with CO2 above a certain temperature where the water can keep absorbing yet more CO2. The down side of this is the water turns more acidic (good bye the present form of the great barrier reef) and goodbye anything likes to live in colder water. The 1.5C limit is to stop the run-away process when no more CO2 can dissolve and temps can only go up.
To keep CO2 down we have to keep C in the ground. So use of Oil and Coal has to stop. Hence energy sources become Nuclear (oh yes), Water, Solar and Wind. How this energy moves around depends on what works for the technology. Batteries and Hydrogen/NH4 have their place as does the intelligent local power grid. The two big technologies that have not been sorted are Large Ships and Aircraft. The large ships could be helped by renewable biofuels as could aircraft but a lot of capital has been invested in Coal and Oil using equipment. This is the fundemental reason why some capatalists are pushing back against this stuff, they have assets to exploit.
So what looks like left wingers to you are just people who would like owners of polluting assets to stop selling them. I understand, I'm a capitalist, I'm just not one that owns any oil,coal or oil/coal infrastructure assets ;-) . In fact I've moved all my money out of those areas just like the Norwegian Wealth fund has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 18:23:35 GMT
Investing in tabacco is fine BTW, not a major green house gas and if stupid people want to kill themselves in slow disgusting ways I don't care (small c), unless they smoke themin England where my NHS pays for them. The vast majority of Fundsmith's tobacco money is not invested in selling death to the British. Thanks Terry, he really doesn't care (big c).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 18:27:19 GMT
Just been reading something that said the world's population was 'only' 2.5 billion in 1950. We'd have a much smaller climate change problem if it had stayed at that figure. Strangely, the decades between 1910-1920 and 1940-1950 have shown the lowest population growth... And about the only time the world's population has fallen was during the 14th century. World wars and plagues are generally thought to be bad things, however. As for the increases during the latter half of the 20th century - well, we're back to modern medicine and famine relief being rather good at stopping large numbers of people dying young, people being rather fond of fornication, and contraception being either poorly available or reportedly frowned on by 'im upstairs. It's not a terribly helpful combination for reducing the global population... Population growth is actually where the middle aged have stopped dying. Normally populations of poor people just start to die early (say by 35), the recent rise in planetry population mainly comes from the group 35 to 70, where improved life/food/medicine has stopped people dying early. This group, normally after procreation (though I understand fornication is still possible) do consume resources butmainly to enhance the lives of the younger group. There is a very good TED talk on the subject which explains what really happens rather than believe Economics from the 17th cent.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Apr 30, 2019 18:38:47 GMT
Good you are not saying that climate change is not happening.
Does that mean that you are saying that climate change is happening? If so you line up with the massive majority of scientists in the world.
While the climate is complex the science of global warming is actually pretty simple. I honestly suggest do take a short MOOC, ideas are above. To get a basic understanding a 12 week course requiring only 8 hours a week would let you see the basic science and understand the options.
I am more than happy to allow debate, but, in such a significant issue, it would be nice if it were informed debate. Frankly I find the idea of debate without education just tiring. (see also Brexit).
The options are simple, various gases of which CO2 is the most common but not the most potent help trap heat from the sun within the atmosphere. This seems to lead to increased water warming hence melting ice sheets and increasing the capacity of the oceans to hold CO2 and hence water. This sounds like a virtous circle however there is no further reaction H2O with CO2 above a certain temperature where the water can keep absorbing yet more CO2. The down side of this is the water turns more acidic (good bye the present form of the great barrier reef) and goodbye anything likes to live in colder water. The 1.5C limit is to stop the run-away process when no more CO2 can dissolve and temps can only go up.
To keep CO2 down we have to keep C in the ground. So use of Oil and Coal has to stop. Hence energy sources become Nuclear (oh yes), Water, Solar and Wind. How this energy moves around depends on what works for the technology. Batteries and Hydrogen/NH4 have their place as does the intelligent local power grid. The two big technologies that have not been sorted are Large Ships and Aircraft. The large ships could be helped by renewable biofuels as could aircraft but a lot of capital has been invested in Coal and Oil using equipment. This is the fundemental reason why some capatalists are pushing back against this stuff, they have assets to exploit.
So what looks like left wingers to you are just people who would like owners of polluting assets to stop selling them. I understand, I'm a capitalist, I'm just not one that owns any oil,coal or oil/coal infrastructure assets ;-) . In fact I've moved all my money out of those areas just like the Norwegian Wealth fund has.
"Does that mean that you are saying that climate change is happening? If so you line up with the massive majority of scientists in the world." - Not even sure what the question is. Do I believe the climate changes - yes. Do I believe man is changing the climate - err no idea but seems sensible to think may have some impact. Do I think that the climate is warming due to Co2 emissions - I haven't the foggiest, if most scientists say it is then I guess so but have no idea based off my own very limited scientific knowledge. "While the climate is complex the science of global warming is actually pretty simple. I honestly suggest do take a short MOOC, ideas are above. To get a basic understanding a 12 week course requiring only 8 hours a week would let you see the basic science and understand the options." You mean the theory of global warming I assume? Yeah that's easy, whether it is the right theory exactly though I would never know in 12 weeks. Thanks for suggesting I do a course on it, but quite honestly prefer getting on with my life. I really don't think I am going to change the world. "Frankly I find the idea of debate without education just tiring. (see also Brexit)." OK I understand if I debate a Shakespeare play with somebody who has never read it, waste of time. If you are debating the climate models with somebody who has no idea, yep waste of time. Debating what the right response is, that's more a judgement. It's quite a logical position to take that even if climate change is happening we won't stop it so maybe should just deal with the consequences as they happen rather than delude us into thinking we can prevent it. "The 1.5C limit is to stop the run-away process when no more CO2 can dissolve and temps can only go up." As I say I am no scientist, but not sure I buy this? Even if the ice sheets melt wont the areas that were once under ice become vegetated? Vegetation exists in many different sea temperatures? Why will it go up and up if we get to 1.5 degrees. What are you saying, we will suddenly get to 50 degrees celcius on a winter day? I am not bought by this line of thinking at all. "So use of Oil and Coal has to stop." it will do at some point anyway we will run out of it. Don't get me wrong, I think that moving to cleaner fuels is good for many reasons, air quality etc. But seeing it as some emergency that we completely have to stop all oil and coal or we will all die, seems not balanced to me. "I understand, I'm a capitalist, I'm just not one that owns any oil,coal or oil/coal infrastructure assets ;-)" OK do you want a good boy sticker?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2019 18:56:22 GMT
Get on with your life....boiled frog, see comments above
Saudi oil minister "we didn't leave the stone age 'cause we ran out of stone"
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Apr 30, 2019 20:27:38 GMT
Investing in tabacco is fine BTW, not a major green house gas and if stupid people want to kill themselves in slow disgusting ways I don't care (small c), unless they smoke themin England where my NHS pays for them. The vast majority of Fundsmith's tobacco money is not invested in selling death to the British. Thanks Terry, he really doesn't care (big c). the people who died from second hand tobacco smoke may care (very big c) and the likes of Amadeus his biggest holding an infrastructure group working with airports,airlines,car rental companies etc on booking systems and support does not exactly scream green friendly due to the business they work with.And i am sure Microsoft factories or their office's don't put out much in the way of emissions which proves how hard it is to avoid Nearly every fund and in turn probably the vast majority of people(some in pensions without knowing) are invested in Amazon,Netflix,Google so how much emissions per delivery or energy used in streaming a film or doing an online search and all 3 will be used by most of the protesters. And that's part of the problem yes we can change the world but not in 5 years without switching the lights off for good and living in a cave. i am fine that someone in the public eye like an actor or actress wants to use their fame to highlight issues last week.But this week will they be on a Hollywood film set using vast numbers of trucks to move equipment,probably a limo for the top stars and hundreds of cars for the rest of cast and staff,trailers to use for resting etc during the day and enough energy on lighting etc to power a small town.And then at the end of the day they will be on a chat show talking about emissions in a tv studio using even more energy & having been driven there and i'm guessing not in a green energy car.And probably most of them have more then One home and all of which will be heated and maintained all year even when there not living there
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Apr 30, 2019 21:22:33 GMT
Get on with your life....boiled frog, see comments above Saudi oil minister "we didn't leave the stone age 'cause we ran out of stone" Yes - people are getting on with their lives. Maybe you are right about climate change soon to destroy life as we have known it. Reality is that if you are right we wont do anywhere near enough to prevent it and if in 10 years time we are boiling eggs on our doorsteps (if they are not 100m under water) in winter then it will happen. The UK has made huge reductions in carbon emissions from power generation, to build nuclear power stations takes decades though and unless you are planning on making people not have the lights and heating on just what is your solution? I am sure you have good intentions, but personally I think your time would be better spent on focusing on things within your control. If climate change wipes out mankind in 10 years time I cannot control. If I work hard at my job and look after my family well I can. What I can assure you is that is climate change is to be tackled it will be by innovation not by people who have no jobs telling others going to work what awful people they are for getting on a tube train.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Apr 30, 2019 22:26:34 GMT
If the UK is going to be successful on climate change, I think they're going to need all-party support.
They could start by either -cancelling plans for a new runway at Heathrow and/or -determining the CO2 emissions from UK originated flights, then tell the industry they need to reduce that by (say) 10% per year. Do it themselves, or the government will simply cancel slots in order to force the reduction.
and h2o
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 30, 2019 22:29:51 GMT
If the UK is going to be successful on climate change, I think they're going to need all-party support.
They could start by either -cancelling plans for a new runway at Heathrow and/or -determining the CO2 emissions from UK originated flights, then tell the industry they need to reduce that by (say) 10% per year. Do it themselves, or the government will simply cancel slots in order to force the reduction.
and h2o Cancelling water ... could prove a problem  HS2?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Apr 30, 2019 22:32:45 GMT
Cancelling water ... could prove a problem HS2?
 i Fear you may be right...
|
|
. If its the latter then fine, but still think its dangerous to insult other scientists who have a different opinion. I am not saying climate change isn't happening or the consensus of scientists is wrong, I have no idea, but I do think that its probably easier, and better paid, if as a scientist you follow the established line in this area. As I said its a complex area of science and for us to just not allow debate in the area I feel doesn't help anybody.
