Climate Change

[nudge]

2 hours ago, 6666 said:

Also, if the planet is totally fucked in 50 years then shouldn't the priority be the biggest offenders on the planet who don't even seem to care at all about climate change? China, USA, etc.

Even if they were doing a good job with their protests in the UK, isn't it a waste of time seeing as the UK isn't the highest priority...?

Fun fact: China is the world's leading country in energy production from renewable sources and invest more into it than any other country as well. And while that's true that they are responsible for the most total CO₂ emissions, their emissions per capita aren't even anywhere near the worst and is more or less equal to those of the EU.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

It's so hot in Qatar right now they've taken to air conditioning THE OUTDOORS.

Which just means more carbon emissions. So it's really just a vicious cycle.

[The Artful Dodger]

Not to belittle anyone's attempt to do something good, I think it's all a bit pointless. There's now way Humans are going to make the changes necessary, it would mean those accustomed to great luxury having to sacrifice, if only slightly. Won't happen. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, nudge said:

Fun fact: China is the world's leading country in energy production from renewable sources and invest more into it than any other country as well. And while that's true that they are responsible for the most total CO₂ emissions, their emissions per capita aren't even anywhere near the worst and is more or less equal to those of the EU.

 

 

Read some contridicting reports but China isn't as bad as some make out. Wikipedia says they produce less co2 per capita than the UK. Another source has them ahead. But they certainly aren't the worst which ever source you read. According to Wikipedia Qatar is the worst which would make sense. Surprisingly Trinidad and Tobago is second. 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Nah it’s a stupid plan - if their argument is that the climate situation is so dire it’ll kill us all in 50 years or less. Fossil fuels are the biggest contributor of it then several weeks of protesting, creating more cars idling in numerous big cities around the world means several weeks of the Extinction Rebellion being the direct cause of more emissions that’ll hurt the planet.

I just can’t reconcile the logic that the situation is so dire, but these extra emissions are worth it because it gets the message out. If the situation is so dire, any uptick in big city emissions over a period of weeks is a bad thing.

I get that mate but the extra emissions won't make a difference. It takes millions of tones to do any damage. If you look through history sometimes things don't chance without quite aggressive protesting.  Some of the protestors are scientists they know what they are on about. Not sure if that is relevant to the discussion but thought it was worth mentioning. Not sure if it will make a difference but if it does it may be seen as worth it in the future.

[nudge]

Whichever way you look at it, it's beyond stupid to call yourself an environmentalist/climate activist and target public transportation which is a part of the solution to the problem you're allegedly trying to solve. Not to mention that it alienates working class and lower middle class people and turns them against you instead of raising awareness.

All that aside, I'd love to hear the group's ideas of how their goal of net zero emission by 2025 should be reached. Because to be honest it sounds very unreasonable. I tried looking on their website but can't find anything specific there either. In fact it seems they even admit that they don't have a clue about any potential solutions as they say that "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis - our third demand is for a Citizens Assembly to come up with a way to deal with the crisis focussing on climate and ecological justice based on being presented with facts from a variety of experts" and "We do not put forwards specific solutions – it is down to the Citizens Assembly to come up with solutions, having first heard from various experts." 

 

Also this is hilarious:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/08/mchypocrites-order-mcdonalds-mission-save-planet-10881519/

Nothing like a McDonald's after a hard day of protesting climate change eh...  

[Harry]

12 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Not to belittle anyone's attempt to do something good, I think it's all a bit pointless. There's now way Humans are going to make the changes necessary, it would mean those accustomed to great luxury having to sacrifice, if only slightly. Won't happen. 

If governments had taken this seriously and engaged in a serious debate about emissions reduction whilst also recognising the need to maintain stable power supply and the huge huge huge costs (and environmental footprint) of battery technology they would have been in such a different position... With global collaboration and capability building we could have launched into a new generation of nuclear power plants and could be so much better placed to reduce our emissions than we are now.

Instead one side only wanted to talk wind and solar because they were too scared to have a more mature conversation with their voter base and the other just doubled down on hydrocarbons for basically the same reason with a bit more underhanded motives. I hold both sides accountable for the failing.

[carefreeluke]

With the discontent with trains and the commute these days, they also picked the wrong people to mess about with.

Loved the pulling the people off the trains part but no need to start punching and laying into them mind, a bit too far.

 

[Stan]

14 hours ago, nudge said:

Whichever way you look at it, it's beyond stupid to call yourself an environmentalist/climate activist and target public transportation which is a part of the solution to the problem you're allegedly trying to solve. Not to mention that it alienates working class and lower middle class people and turns them against you instead of raising awareness.

All that aside, I'd love to hear the group's ideas of how their goal of net zero emission by 2025 should be reached. Because to be honest it sounds very unreasonable. I tried looking on their website but can't find anything specific there either. In fact it seems they even admit that they don't have a clue about any potential solutions as they say that "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis - our third demand is for a Citizens Assembly to come up with a way to deal with the crisis focussing on climate and ecological justice based on being presented with facts from a variety of experts" and "We do not put forwards specific solutions – it is down to the Citizens Assembly to come up with solutions, having first heard from various experts." 

 

Also this is hilarious:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/08/mchypocrites-order-mcdonalds-mission-save-planet-10881519/

Nothing like a McDonald's after a hard day of protesting climate change eh...  

Yeah I loved this hypocrisy . Madness how blind they must be to be so ignorant of their actions. The irony. 

[The Artful Dodger]

I'm not sure about that, we're all compromised by the world we live in. It's virtually impossible to live in this world without having to participate in some morally hypocritical action. If we go down that road there is nothing we can do about anything without sneering and jeers of hypocrisy. I don't think there is much of a point to what they do but don't think there is anything especially hypocritical about having a maccies lunch.

What these people fail to realise that the very thing they fret about 'human extinction', is the very thing that would be best for the planet.

[nudge]

30 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm not sure about that, we're all compromised by the world we live in. It's virtually impossible to live in this world without having to participate in some morally hypocritical action. If we go down that road there is nothing we can do about anything without sneering and jeers of hypocrisy. I don't think there is much of a point to what they do but don't think there is anything especially hypocritical about having a maccies lunch.

I agree with this part in general but going to McDonald's surely is a purely individual choice? Especially with so many options to choose from that are more environment-friendly and more fitting to the cause they claim to be supporting. It's all good to be worried about our current way of life and demand a "system change" but it appears to me that a lot of those who are the loudest about it are not willing to make individual changes they are more than able to make that could enable the system change in the first place. Hence the hypocrisy. 

[The Artful Dodger]

39 minutes ago, nudge said:

I agree with this part in general but going to McDonald's surely is a purely individual choice? Especially with so many options to choose from that are more environment-friendly and more fitting to the cause they claim to be supporting. It's all good to be worried about our current way of life and demand a "system change" but it appears to me that a lot of those who are the loudest about it are not willing to make individual changes they are more than able to make that could enable the system change in the first place. Hence the hypocrisy. 

Yeah, you're right. Surely they could have just brought their own sarnies if nothing else? I do find some of the more celebrity protesters a bit tiring too, living a life well beyond the imagination of most of us with luxury travel etc. They do have an image problem but we're never going to find anyone pure in terms of hypocrisy, what's important is the message.

[Carnivore Chris]

2 hours ago, nudge said:

I agree with this part in general but going to McDonald's surely is a purely individual choice? Especially with so many options to choose from that are more environment-friendly and more fitting to the cause they claim to be supporting. It's all good to be worried about our current way of life and demand a "system change" but it appears to me that a lot of those who are the loudest about it are not willing to make individual changes they are more than able to make that could enable the system change in the first place. Hence the hypocrisy. 

This is off-topic, but they are actually trying to ban certain Mcdonald's burgers now in the UK due to "calorie laws" or whatever nonsense it is. It's a way of tackling "child obesity", although the majority of obese kids have fat parents and this is your problem, not the fact that a specific burger is on sale. I also think KFC is affected with its "bucket for one".

People should be free to eat whatever they want, I don't get how this government even get away with what they do.

It will happen too, just look at fizzy drinks. Most of them taste like shite now as they have had a lot of sugar taken out of them, specifically Lucozade, which @SirBalon will agree, is awful now and undrinkable. Yes, it's bad for you, but a bottle of lucozade from time to time was a nice booster, especially when at work, you have just done 8 hours and have another 2 left to work.

In reality, obesity is more due to lifestyles(and even metabolisms) than the fact that you like to eat a double burger from time to time. I know lads who are fat bastards, yet eat pretty much the same type of food as me. The difference between them and myself is that they sit in a digger at work all day while I'm constantly moving. I also go on a lot of regular long walks, while they will drive to a shop that is 0.1 mile away. They do literally no exercise.

[Carnivore Chris]

2 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm not sure about that, we're all compromised by the world we live in. It's virtually impossible to live in this world without having to participate in some morally hypocritical action. If we go down that road there is nothing we can do about anything without sneering and jeers of hypocrisy. I don't think there is much of a point to what they do but don't think there is anything especially hypocritical about having a maccies lunch.

What these people fail to realise that the very thing they fret about 'human extinction', is the very thing that would be best for the planet.

 

Humans are just cunts full stop. We are the dominant species on the planet and we abuse that fact. Our generation are atleast trying to make changes though.

 

 

 

[Harry]

On 18/10/2019 at 09:32, nudge said:

All that aside, I'd love to hear the group's ideas of how their goal of net zero emission by 2025 should be reached. Because to be honest it sounds very unreasonable. I tried looking on their website but can't find anything specific there either. In fact it seems they even admit that they don't have a clue about any potential solutions as they say that "XR does not take a position on solutions to the ecological crisis - our third demand is for a Citizens Assembly to come up with a way to deal with the crisis focussing on climate and ecological justice based on being presented with facts from a variety of experts" and "We do not put forwards specific solutions – it is down to the Citizens Assembly to come up with solutions, having first heard from various experts." 

Plant around 4 billion trees, mandate electric vehicles into law and maybe replace every coal power station remaining with a combination of wind and battery storage. Also probably eliminate any cattle/sheep farming activities on the Isles and have a massive campaign on changing people's diets based on the carbon footprint of the various options... Something like a written measure on every food packet and ads like this...

 

[nudge]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Plant around 4 billion trees, mandate electric vehicles into law and maybe replace every coal power station remaining with a combination of wind and battery storage. Also probably eliminate any cattle/sheep farming activities on the Isles and have a massive campaign on changing people's diets based on the carbon footprint of the various options... Something like a written measure on every food packet and ads like this...

 

Nah for real; they don't have any plan and any solutions. Apparently finding them will be the job of the randomly selected national citizens' assembly. 

On a side note those electric Renaults are ugly af...

[6666]

On 17/10/2019 at 18:09, nudge said:

Fun fact: China is the world's leading country in energy production from renewable sources and invest more into it than any other country as well. And while that's true that they are responsible for the most total CO₂ emissions, their emissions per capita aren't even anywhere near the worst and is more or less equal to those of the EU.

 

On 17/10/2019 at 22:43, Gunnersauraus said:

Read some contridicting reports but China isn't as bad as some make out. Wikipedia says they produce less co2 per capita than the UK. Another source has them ahead. But they certainly aren't the worst which ever source you read. According to Wikipedia Qatar is the worst which would make sense. Surprisingly Trinidad and Tobago is second. 

Per capita stats are a weird thing to go by in my opinion. Targeting Qatar for high co2 emissions per capita would mean targeting a small percentage of the overall co2 emissions. You're focusing more on the amount of people a country has rather than their emissions. The government can't come out and say "Our solution to making us more efficient is to vastly increase the population in the country. The per capita stats will look better.".

It's not totally irrelevant when determining what each country should be aiming for but per capita stats can't be the main stat you base this off of. You also have to consider overall emissions and land mass and if certain countries have to do certain things that may result in high co2 emissions (manufacturing, oil refining, etc.) but other countries take advantage of meaning they're also partly responsible for those emissions. (All of which probably has China coming out not looking so bad). Then we get to a stage where no one wants to take responsibility and no real changes will be made which unfortunately makes all of these protests quite pointless.

[Harry]

On 20/10/2019 at 19:58, 6666 said:

 

Per capita stats are a weird thing to go by in my opinion. Targeting Qatar for high co2 emissions per capita would mean targeting a small percentage of the overall co2 emissions. You're focusing more on the amount of people a country has rather than their emissions. The government can't come out and say "Our solution to making us more efficient is to vastly increase the population in the country. The per capita stats will look better.".

It's not totally irrelevant when determining what each country should be aiming for but per capita stats can't be the main stat you base this off of. You also have to consider overall emissions and land mass and if certain countries have to do certain things that may result in high co2 emissions (manufacturing, oil refining, etc.) but other countries take advantage of meaning they're also partly responsible for those emissions. (All of which probably has China coming out not looking so bad). Then we get to a stage where no one wants to take responsibility and no real changes will be made which unfortunately makes all of these protests quite pointless.

I think per capita stats are one of the most useful things to go by. For example Australia is among the highest for this stat and the primary factor is The reliance on coal power generation technology, including Brown coal and the lack of nuclear and renewables. Our total footprint is higher than the UK or France with a quarter the population.

We hide from the per capita stat and instead focus on the fact we are only a single percent of the world's emissions therefore no point in trying too hard to curb our bad habits... 

[6666]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

I think per capita stats are one of the most useful things to go by. For example Australia is among the highest for this stat and the primary factor is The reliance on coal power generation technology, including Brown coal and the lack of nuclear and renewables. Our total footprint is higher than the UK or France with a quarter the population.

We house behind the per capita stat and instead focus on the fact we are only a single percent of the world's emissions therefore no point is trying to hard to curb our bad habits...

Point is, how much difference does targeting that single percent of the world's emissions actually make? That is the main point if we're talking about a global crisis. Australia can do better, the UK can do better. That doesn't really matter though.

China's per capita stats look good simply because they have a billion people which makes their average look a lot nicer.

Will targeting small percentages make that much difference?

[nudge]

4 hours ago, 6666 said:

Per capita stats are a weird thing to go by in my opinion. Targeting Qatar for high co2 emissions per capita would mean targeting a small percentage of the overall co2 emissions. You're focusing more on the amount of people a country has rather than their emissions. The government can't come out and say "Our solution to making us more efficient is to vastly increase the population in the country. The per capita stats will look better.".

It's not totally irrelevant when determining what each country should be aiming for but per capita stats can't be the main stat you base this off of. You also have to consider overall emissions and land mass and if certain countries have to do certain things that may result in high co2 emissions (manufacturing, oil refining, etc.) but other countries take advantage of meaning they're also partly responsible for those emissions. (All of which probably has China coming out not looking so bad). Then we get to a stage where no one wants to take responsibility and no real changes will be made which unfortunately makes all of these protests quite pointless.

I disagree. The amount of total emissions is important but essentially it only tells you which country releases most GHG into atmosphere and let's be honest - it is heavily dependent on the size of population and economical growth; but it's barely useful for any sensible comparison between the countries. Meanwhile the per capita stat allows you to actually compare countries regardless of the size of their population and relate emissions to the size of a country. It gives insights into the lifestyles, customer behaviour, consumption, energy and economy efficiency among other things which are more useful in identifying the key areas to be focused on in each country to improve. The government can't come out and say "Our solution to making us more efficient is to vastly increase the population in the country. The per capita stats will look better." as you suggest either because it doesn't make any sense; the bigger the country's population the more energy you need to produce, the more infrastructure you need to build and upkeep, the more food and goods you need to grow and manufacture or import in order to sustain it leading to higher emissions and more significant carbon footprint one way or another.

I understand that what you're saying is that a country's total emissions are more important in terms of showing which countries should decrease their emissions first because they are contributing most to the climate change in order to see a significant change happening globally. But it only makes sense in theory as essentially some arbitrary lines defining countries on the map don't matter to the planet; that's why per capita emissions are much more relevant. The reduction of emissions has to be an equal global effort in order to make any lasting difference and it's much easier and sensible to reduce emissions in a less populous country with higher per capita than in a populous country the per capita of which is already much lower. Your average Chinese or Indian has a much lesser impact on climate change and emits less CO2 than your average American (as an example) - yet somehow we should accuse the Chinese and make him consume even less simply because there happens to be more of them on the planet while the American gets to further enjoy his overconsumption and keep on emitting way more than the world's average person because there's less of them in total? Don't think that's a very sensible talking point and that's the real avoidance of responsibility in my opinion.

[Azeem]

How much does human farting contribute to total emissions ?

[Harry]

12 hours ago, Stick With Azeem said:

How much does human farting contribute to total emissions ?

Not that much mate. Much less than cows for example. At least an order of magnitude imo.

And so much less than just our breathing out CO2.

The bigger part of digestion related emission is in biowaste... most people s biowaste ends up at Sewerage treatment plants where the methane is ultimately recovered and used for renewable energy generation.

Cows on the other hand crap in a field and it just decays away in situ. Their carbon footprint is more due to that than actual farts.

 

[CaaC (John)+]

Paris Agreement: Trump confirms the US will leave climate accord

The US will definitely withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, President Trump has confirmed.

He made the announcement at an energy conference in Pittsburgh on a stage flanked by men in hard hats.

He described the accord as a bad deal and said his pro-fossil fuel policies had made the US an energy superpower.

FULL REPORT

[Bluewolf]

Never thought I would see the day that both Ted Danson & Jane Fonda get arrested at a climate change protest in Washington... 

The two were arrested during an event called Fire Drill Fridays, which are organized by Fonda in an effort to get politicians to address climate change.

Capitol Police released a statement on Friday afternoon that read: 'Fonda and Danson were among 32 people arrested for allegedly unlawfully demonstrating in the intersection of East Capitol and First Streets.'

 

[CaaC (John)+]

Greta Thunberg: New beetle named after climate activist

A newly discovered species of beetle has been named after young climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Nelloptodes gretae bears little resemblance to its namesake - it is less than 1mm long, and has no wings or eyes.

The insect does, however, have two long pigtail-like antennae.

Scientist Dr Michael Darby said he chose the name because he was "immensely impressed" by the Swedish teenager's environmental campaigning.

N. gretae was first found in Kenya in the 1960s by William Block, who donated his samples to the Natural History Museum in London in 1978. It has been held in one of the museum's collections since.

Dr Darby was studying this collection when he came across the then-nameless species.

FULL REPORT