Climate Change thread

[Magilla]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It's more likley than the UK skinting itself and forcing the entire population (apart from the rich....) to forgo stuff they have long taken for granted* reducing carbon emissions enough to make a significant difference.

What if the effects of not taking action cost significantly more over the longer scale?

 

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

In the event that "a Billion people tried to get to Europe" I would, at that point, become anti immigration and they'd have to get genuinely tough on it.

In what way? 5% of Africa is expected to be on the move and heading North by 2050...

 

...gun boats and barricades?

 

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

But I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, and neither I, nor most people, would forgo what's listed below because it might make it slightly less likely.

Gunna be somewhat awkward if those "bridges" end up costing 10 fold what it would to act now though... wouldn't it?

 

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

What if the effects of not taking action cost significantly more over the longer scale?

In what way? 5% of Africa is expected to be on the move and heading North by 2050...

...gun boats and barricades?

Gunna be somewhat awkward if those "bridges" end up costing 10 fold what it would to act now though... wouldn't it?

>>What if the effects of not taking action cost significantly more over the longer scale?<<

 

I do not see how that can be the case for this country at any rate.

 

 >>5% of Africa is expected to be on the move and heading North by 2050...<<

 

Even if you accept those figures (and they're just guesstimates) 5% of Africa is not a Billion, it's about 70 million.

 

>>...gun boats and barricades?<<

 

I would not usually be in favour of extreme measures to prevent immigration but if things got stupid that's what we'd have to do. It'd be cheaper and more certain than spending Trillions trying (possibly unsuccessfully) to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

>>Gunna be somewhat awkward if those "bridges" end up costing 10 fold what it would to act now though... wouldn't it?<<

 

There is no way that any realistic results of Global warming would cost this country 10X what it will be required to spend to get to "Nett Zero".

Edited January 31, 2023 by Chekhov

[Magilla]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

>>What if the effects of not taking action cost significantly more over the longer scale?<<

 

I do not see how that can be the case.

That's because, as before, you have failed to see the scope of the ramifications.

 

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

 >>5% of Africa is expected to be on the move and heading North by 2050...<<

 

Even if you accept those figures, and they're just guesstimates) 5% of Africa is not a Billion, it's about 70 million.

115 million by 2050... what will that number be by 2100?

 

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

>>...gun boats and barricades?<<

 

I would not usually be in favour of extreme measures to prevent immigration but if things got stupid that's what we'd have to do. It'd be cheaper and more certain than spending Trillions trying (possibly unsuccessfully) to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Well, as long as you can continue to do whatever you want regardless

 

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

>>Gunna be somewhat awkward if those "bridges" end up costing 10 fold what it would to act now though... wouldn't it?<<

 

There is no way that any realistic results of Global warming would cost this country 10X what it will be required to spend to get to "Nett Zero".

A claim you cannot substantiate, again, issues of scope.

 

The costs continue to increase the longer you leave it.

 

[Magilla]

5 hours ago, Chekhov said:

The Times - 10 Oct 22 p8 :

Rising carbon emissions make trees grow bigger

Trees feasting on increased CO2 emissions have grown thicker and larger researchers at Ohio State University suggest.

Academics examined the volume of trees in ten temperate forest groups across America and found that the volume of tree trunks was up 30% bigger than 30 years ago.

The phenomenon, known as Carbon fertilisation - when an influx of CO2 increases a plant's rate of photosynthesis - is likely to be replicated across the world.

Assuming all things are equal, like nutrient balance in the soil, and water availability.

 

It also reduces their lifespan.

 

 

Regardless, last time I looked, in general we don't eat tree's!

 

The things we do eat produce lower yields, and those yields also have a lower nutrient and protein content as CO2 increases.

 

What happens if high CO2 levels lead to crops losing enough key nutrients...

 

...you get millions of people with a nutritional issues, and protein deficiency!

 

How much will that cost? (I don't mean just in £).

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Magilla

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

That's because, as before, you have failed to see the scope of the ramifications.

I should have said :

 

>>What if the effects of not taking action cost significantly more over the longer scale?<<

>I do not see how that can be the case for this country at any rate.<

 

And I stand by that.

 

>>That's because, as before, you have failed to see the scope of the ramifications.<<

 

And you have failed to see just how expensive this is all going to be (with no guarantee of success anyway), and just how much people are going to have to change their lives, for most people in a thoroughly negative direction.

[Magilla]

43 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

And I stand by that.

You have clearly failed to see the scope of the ramifications.

 

I stand by that.

 

43 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

And you have failed to see just how expensive this is all going to be (with no guarantee of success anyway), and just how much people are going to have to change their lives, for most people in a thoroughly negative direction.

You assume that everyone won't have to anyway!

 

The innovations and technological advances that targets towards Net Zero will impose and in turn encourage, help mitigate the issues you highlight, and many more.

[Chekhov]

12 hours ago, Magilla said:

The innovations and technological advances that targets towards Net Zero will impose and in turn encourage, help mitigate the issues you highlight, and many more.

So, basically, technology will mean we can all have our cake and eat it, all still have our own personal transport, still be able to fly away on holiday when we want to and live in nice warm houses. Nobody will suffer anything.

It must be nice to live in such an optimistic dream land, what did someone who inhabits such a place think would happen during the pandemic ? That didn't turn out so well did it ?

Edited February 1, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

12 hours ago, Magilla said:

>>Chekhov said:
And you have failed to see just how expensive this is all going to be (with no guarantee of success anyway), and just how much people are going to have to change their lives, for most people in a thoroughly negative direction.<<

 

You assume that everyone won't have to anyway!

I am confident we won't have to do that, certainly not in this country anyway.

 

Don't get me wrong, climate change will cost us all money and we should do what we can to limit it so long as its proportionate, e.g. we have solar panels on our roof, installed, BTW, before it was a good investment......

 

But :

 

1 - I do not believe the effect on the world, certainly on humans, will be as bad as is being suggested. Historically the climate has been both far hotter and also far colder than it is now. Humans are the most adaptable creatures ever to have walked the earth.

 

2 - There is no guarantee that changing our lives forever, at massive cost, will prevent it anyway. What we do is almost irrelevant whilst China, India and many other countries aren't interested. And who can blame them, if I were a poor country I would not be countenancing keeping my population in poverty just so we could try and head off climate change, and there is no way this country should to be paying them the many Trillions necessary to subsidise them to do so. That would never fly if if put to a referendum in this country, no way.

 

3 - Mitigating climate change will be much cheaper than trying (very possibly unsuccessfully) to prevent it, certainly in this country.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Chekhov

[ads36]

i'm somewhat inclined to agree.

 

the good news is that many (if not all) of the mitigation measures, are the same as net-zero, are also the same as things we need to be doing *anyway*.

 

eg: insulating our houses - we need to be cracking on with it anyway, never mind climate change. UK houses are cold and damp.

 

eg: restoring our wild areas - we need our uplands to be rich, diverse, and perhaps most importantly - water retaining. Nevermind that our very own Peak District is a huge but damaged CO2 store, we can save ourselves a chuffing fortune building flood defences if we restore the natural ability of the hills to hold onto rainfall.

 

eg: public transport and active travel - cars are great, but car dependency, and physical-inactivity help no-one, and cost us a fortune in terrible health consequences.

 

etc. etc. i could go on. Loads of good stuff that needs to happen anyway, nevermind climate change.

 

(no-one wants cold houses, flooding, traffic congestion, old people isolated because they can't drive anymore, school kids getting fat because they get driven everywhere, etc.)

[El Cid]

32 minutes ago, ads36 said:

We can save ourselves a chuffing fortune building flood defences if we restore the natural ability of the hills to hold onto rainfall.

It's a little more complicated than that.

Stop people tarmacing their drives etc etc.