advertisement


The PFM Environment thread

Kirk said:
Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016

Not an intractable problem.
Click to expand...

I'd say it WAS an intractable problem. These named companies INCREASED emissions since the Paris Agreement. They obviously don't give a damn and will not decrease emissions unless they are forced to. And who is going to force them? The companies pretty much own politicians and there are no signs that politicians want to or even can legislate against their activities.

I'm getting very tired of all the videos on climate change that end up with some kind of "but there still is hope..." message.

There are absolutely NO signs that global emissions are going to decrease dramatically or even decrease at all. Face facts, face facts... Commentators on global warming should stop being so bloody delusional and tell it straight.
 
les24preludes said:
I'd say it WAS an intractable problem. These named companies INCREASED emissions since the Paris Agreement. They obviously don't give a damn and will not decrease emissions unless they are forced to. And who is going to force them? The companies pretty much own politicians and there are no signs that politicians want to or even can legislate against their activities.

I'm getting very tired of all the videos on climate change that end up with some kind of "but there still is hope..." message.

There are absolutely NO signs that global emissions are going to decrease dramatically or even decrease at all. Face facts, face facts... Commentators on global warming should stop being so bloody delusional and tell it straight.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a problem (restricting the 57, that is) that can be resolved, whether it will be is another matter. There is still hope but time is running out. I think the IPCC have said the same thing, though I'm not up on their latest work/opinion.
 

Farmers warn ‘crisis is building’ as record rainfall drastically reduces UK food production​

Reduction in yields means UK will be dependent on imports for wheat in coming year and possibly beyond

[having been paying farmers not to grow on a certain portion of land into the bargain]

www.theguardian.com

Farmers warn ‘crisis is building’ as record rainfall drastically reduces UK food production

Reduction in yields means UK will be dependent on imports for wheat in coming year and possibly beyond
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Would you vote for a party that.....
- encouraged everyone to become vegetarian and taxed meat
- taxed imported luxury foods
- imposed mileage limits on cars
- restricted air travel to necessary flights
- set limits on data centres
- banned bitcoin
- required insulation certificates on buildings
- spent a large chunk of public money on wind farms and solar panels

I'm sure there's much more, but you get the message. This is about the minimum basic action that has to happen right now.

If you didn't answer "yes" to the above, then you get the politicians you deserve.

Sorry to be so blunt, but cutting global emissions requires measures like the above. If you mainly answered "no" to the above then you voted for a rise in global temperatures and everything that comes with that. This is a theoretical construct, but actually it isn't.
 
No-one makes a change they don't want to make until the negative consequences are imminent and certain. I think we are approaching that point but probably about 7 years out.
Same with stopping smoking or not doing whatever you like to do; "what about my grandma lived to 98 on 20 a day." Everyone knows smoking kills, everyone knows that human activity is heating the planet.
Besides, just got back from Calcutta and climate change is not uppermost in people's minds other than the 0.1% of the dinner party classes.. Getting enough to eat seems to be much more front of mind.
 
MVV said:
No-one makes a change they don't want to make until the negative consequences are imminent and certain. I think we are approaching that point but probably about 7 years out. Same with stopping smoking or not doing whatever you like to do; "what about my grandma lived to 98 on 20 a day." Everyone knows smoking kills, everyone knows that human activity is heating the planet. Besides, just got back from Calcutta and climate change is not uppermost in people's minds other than the 0.1% of the dinner party classes.. Getting enough to eat seems to be much more front of mind.
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty typical of most people. This is why climate action isn't happening and won't happen until some catastrophic things start to occur that force people to confront the problem. Like their houses swept away by floods or burned in wildfires. Maybe the heat itself will trigger some action, or a huge increase in climate migrants - we'll find out pretty soon.
 
An article in Nature (The economic commitment of climate change - here) estimates that by 2050 we are on track for global economic losses in the range of 19–59 trillion 2005 international dollars per year - an average of $38 trillion per year.

The article estimates that by 2050 damages will amount to around six times the mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 2C.
 
The capitalistic world is totally obsessed with and centred around growth to the point where it can't even understand what the alternative could be, let alone how to put it into action. Growth requires fossil fuels because there are as yet no large scale alternatives. So emissions will continue to rise as populations rise and growth continues.

There is a movement called "degrowth" but as yet it's unrealistic and has a lot of utopian features like "happy communes". Take a look. It's not good enough as it stands.

 
paulfromcamden said:
Retired GP is suspended for five months and faces being stuck off for engaging in climate protest despite the tribunal board stating that her actions raised no concerns about patient safety.

www.theguardian.com

Retired UK GP suspended for five months after climate protests

Sarah Benn is first of three GPs facing disciplinary tribunals this year over climate activism
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
"During the tribunal, Benn noted that the GMC had recently apologised to gay doctors struck off the medical register because of their sexuality. “In years to come, when events unfold and tipping points tip, and systems unravel, my prediction is that the reputation of those who tried their best to protect patients, the public, and future generations will be enhanced, not reduced,” she said."

Personally I wouldn't want a Tory doctor because they support cuts to the nhs. How can anyone have confidence?
 
les24preludes said:
The capitalistic world is totally obsessed with and centred around growth to the point where it can't even understand what the alternative could be, let alone how to put it into action. Growth requires fossil fuels because there are as yet no large scale alternatives. So emissions will continue to rise as populations rise and growth continues.

There is a movement called "degrowth" but as yet it's unrealistic and has a lot of utopian features like "happy communes". Take a look. It's not good enough as it stands.

Click to expand...

When i did economics a few of us were into Steady State economics: we'd already got Zero Population Growth and SS seemed the logical aim.

Infinite growth in a finite world can't work.

I guess we should have shouted louder 50 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top