Climate Change thread

[Chekhov]

5 hours ago, El Cid said:

The policy is not to have net-zero now, but in 10/20/30 years, that is what people voted for.

It's in the conservative 2019 manifesto, so millions voted for net-zero there.

Local councils also have net-zero policies, so millions voted for it there.

There were other parties that voters could have opted for, but the majority of voters chose a party promoting net-zero.

 

Chekhov said : Hardly anyone voted for it.  Local council elections are nothing to do with nett zero and the 2019 GE was won on Brexit etc, almost everything else was something and nothing. And I don't even support Brexit. The next GE will probably be won by Labour mainly due to the state of the economy (despite the fact Labour wanted to suppress it even longer than the Tories and it was that which really ****ed the economy ! ). Thus "nett zero" will be way down the list of what people will be voting for in 2024, particularly (and the Government know this) because it hasn't really started hitting people yet.

I am loath to agree with Farage but on this I do, there should be a referendum on if we should be going for nett zero in 2050, and, on the way, get rid of cars in 2030 and gas boilers in new homes from 2025. That is only two years away for Gawd's sake. This is madness, and its undemocratic because there is no way there'd be a majority for all this. No way whatsoever.

In my earlier answer I forgot the most obvious point !

Since all three main parties stood on a "nett zero" agenda (and therefore voters had no choice in the matter), how can you, in all honesty, say "millions voted for it" ? ! ?

That's something else that reminds me of Covid, all three parties having essentially the same policy.

Very democratic, not.

 

[El Cid]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

In my earlier answer I forgot the most obvious point !

Since all three main parties stood on a "nett zero" agenda (and therefore voters had no choice in the matter), how can you, in all honesty, say "millions voted for it" ? ! ?

That's something else that reminds me of Covid, all three parties having essentially the same policy.

Very democratic, not.

 

Voters can choose which party to vote for, it's called democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chekhov]

38 minutes ago, El Cid said:

If you cannot judge which 'experts' are genuine, then you will be no wiser.

Most of the experts (certainly the ones the government were listening to) in the pandemic were all coming out with the same sort of stuff. But more and more of what they predicted has been proven by subsequent events to have been overly pessimistic and plain wrong. I could put a  list on here if you want ! ? !

I am of the view much the same will turn out to be true of the "climate emergency".

But, as I said before, we are missing the point anyway. We live in a democracy (supposedly), so if the population decide they'd rather spend Billions mitigating climate change rather than Trillions trying (possibly unsuccessfully) to prevent it, that is what we should be doing.

 

Personally I think we should "only" be taking realistic and proportionate steps. Encouraging renewable energy (but not by punishing those who choose not to partake), planting trees (I'm for that anyway) and investing in Carbon capture. Incidentally the latter could combine with burning biomass to make carbon neutral energy.

Banning all internal combustion vehicles by 2030 and trying to go carbon neutral by 2050 is not realistic to proportionate. Certainly as it has not been voted in. 

People have no idea whatsoever just how much this "nett zero" is going to negatively affect their lives, they really haven't.

 

8 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Voters can choose which party to vote for, it's called democracy.

You said people who voted for parties which had "Nett zero" in their manifestos voted for "nett zero"

I disagree anyway, but, if all the parties had "nett zero" in their manifestos how could they vote against it ? ! ?

Edited January 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[El Cid]

18 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

You said people who voted for parties which had "Nett zero" in their manifestos voted for "nett zero"

I disagree anyway, but, if all the parties had "nett zero" in their manifestos how could they vote against it ? ! ?

But all the parties standing didn't advocate net-zero.

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

But all the parties standing didn't advocate net-zero.

Sorry, which one did not ?

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Most of the experts (certainly the ones the government were listening to) in the pandemic were all coming out with the same sort of stuff. 

You have had that view, others have a different view. Most people's views have not changed.

The same will be true about climate change, I have believed in climate change for over a decade, my view is unlikely to change.

Your failure to believe in climate change is also unlikely to change. On many subjects, discussing them is pointless. Perhaps there are a small percentage of people that do change their minds.

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Sorry, which one did not ?

The Brexit party

[Anna B]

Yes I think the climate is changing. just as it has done over millions of years. 

But we may be heading into a long overdue ice age which will do far more damage to mankind than rising temperatures, but no one ever mentions that these days. 

 

Yes I still think we should do what we can using new ideas and technology,  not by constantly clobbering  the little man all the time. Eg. Building regulations should insist that all new houses should be as efficient as possible with grey water systems, solar panels and even small wind turbines where possible. Big companies should be forced into more efficient ways of processing, (and pay all their taxes,) Public transport shoul be cheap, super efficient and an attractive alternative to cars. Trees should be planted everywhere possible. Money should be spent on research and development, and finding ways of dealing with the problems etc. and work shared around the Globe.

 

The answers are out there. We are a problem solving species. Constant fines for small transgressions are not the answer.

 

Britain's emmisions are tiny, and it's pointless trying to reduce them further when China and India are belching huge quantities of the stuff out and ignoring regulations.  

 

[Annie Bynnol]

13 hours ago, trastrick said:

All that, and NOAA/NASA's warming anomaly is still 0.05 degrees over the 43 year satellite data record. 

Arctic Ice Today! NOAA/NASA

   Your have chosen three graphics which show:

Graph 1 - the seventh lowest ice coverage in history

Graph 2 - the continuing rise in global air temperature in the lower atmosphere at 0.05 °C per decade 

Graph 3-  the continuing reduction of sea ice at 3.5 percent per decade,

Source NSDIC Arctic sea ice news

 

    It begs the question- why? 

• Why would you use Government data which clearly show two current effects of continuing  'global warming'?
• Why do you ignore the commentary associated with each graph?
• Why do you ignore the latest summary? 

     If the best evidence you can select are two data sets(amongst many) that agree with the view that the planet is undergoing a rapid period of climate change, then your attempt of is flawed. A far more telling data set would concern sea temperature at different depths of the oceans and seas across the globe.

     The view of the climatologist is that there is a slow but inexorable rise in sea temperature.

• This energy will at the very least push more frequent and extreme weather events.
• Local effects will exaggerate the impact.
• Sea temperature changes will impact air temperature and therefore wind and rainfall.
• Sea temperature could impact on sea current flow and direction- that really would be a problem.  

 

 

 

[Chekhov]

14 hours ago, El Cid said:

>>Chekhov said :  Sorry, which one did not [stand on a nett zero policy] ?<<

 

The Brexit party

Are you serious ? ! ?

Come on !

In the first place opposition to Nett Zero was not as high up the political agenda in 2019 as it is now, and, more significantly, the Brexit party's opposition to it was even less talked about. Most significantly most people would not want to vote for the Brexit party for loads of reasons, I know this only too well being a Remainer. I was tempted to vote Reform UK during the Pandemic as they were the only party talking sense on it, but their Covid policy was not the one they majored on (it was more about anti immigration and support for Brexit) and so even I could not bring myself to do it. Thus, by your rather convoluted logic, I voted for the suppression of society (re Covid), yet I cannot think of anything I have been more opposed to in my entire life.

If Reform UK changed their name to No to Nett Zero (or similar), majored on it and only that, then you might have more of a point.

 

14 hours ago, El Cid said:

You have had that view, others have a different view. Most people's views [on the handling of the pandemic] have not changed.

The same will be true about climate change, I have believed in climate change for over a decade, my view is unlikely to change.

Your failure to believe in climate change is also unlikely to change. On many subjects, discussing them is pointless. Perhaps there are a small percentage of people that do change their minds.

That's not what I am picking up on, particularly face to face, though I accept that most of those who have changed their position have not converted to mine, they 'just' say "we should only have locked down the first time and for a shorter time".

But we are talking about the received wisdom of the experts being accepted without question. That is more or less happened during Covid, and they were wrong more than they were right, and if you dispute that I can put a list on for you ! Short of that remember the two times the government ignored the scaremongering experts (July 2 and Dec 21) ? Both times the "experts" were shown to be wrong.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Chekhov

[El Cid]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

That's not what I am picking up on, particularly face to face, though I accept that most of those who have changed their position have not converted to mine, they 'just' say "we should only have locked down the first time and for a shorter time".

But we are talking about the received wisdom of the experts being accepted without question. That is more or less happened during Covid, and they were wrong more than they were right, and if you dispute that I can put a list on for you ! Short of that remember the two times the government ignored the scaremongering experts (July 2 and Dec 21) ? Both times the "experts" were shown to be wrong.

COVID and climate change are comparable in that most people accept that they are negative things that requires action. But they don't like the Governments solution. That is partly because their solution is poor and partly because people don't want to change.

It's not popular to close pubs and retailers; it's not popular to make people get public transport or increase fuel tax.

I believe that the Cameron Government would have dealt with COVID much better.

I agree in prioritising public transport and taxing fuel, we are an obese nation, not just net-zero.