"How worried are you about climate change?" Topic

" Species extinction"

We're more in danger of extinction from our own species than from climate change… ;-)

Parzival And Kim +1

Even if you don't agree with those who
gave a zero, those giving the zero aren't forcing those giving 10's to give up their gas mowers, gas cars, freon, gas stoves, etc. etc. etc. and buying all new more expensive and in many cases, less efficient replacements. 😉

Lastly no matter how many sacrifices the US and EU make in environmental sacrifices, China, India, Russia and many others will cover with their own increases in pollution production.

Emissions from China and India do bother me. No so much other stuff.

It's not emmessions from China that are the problem, it's much more than that.

Kum

The list of end-of-the-world eco-fears include:

*Silent Spring
*Love Canal
*Three Mile Island
*Overpopulation
*Acid Rain
*The Ozone Hole

None of these were ever touted as end-of-the-world. In fact most of them were acknowledged as only noticeably impacting certain parts of the globe. Those impacts would be to make life extremely unpleasant in said areas, but not apocalyptic. The last two are a particularly curious inclusion on this list, as they are the rare example of solving a man-made climate problem. Near universal compliance was achieved with regard to specific emissions goals, eliminating the drivers for both of these problems.

FYI, the New Ice Age and Killer Bees were media driven stories, not serious scientific concerns.

0

+1 enfant perdus

That's exactly what I thought when I saw the list. Most of what was on his list had nothing to do with the end of the world. TMI is the craziest one. Nobody said TMI was the end of the world, no one died and it wasn't as bad as we thought. Chornobyl was much worse, 47 firemen died and some of the workers but no one said that was the end of the world.

@enfant perdus – sorry, I recall as a kid during the times these threats were promoted that they were pushed as THE END OF THE WORLD! Each one, every time.

Silent Spring -- DDT will kill all the birds leading insect plagues and mass crop failures that WILL KILL US ALL!

Love Canal – a toxic waste spill was generalized as the symbol of toxic pollution that was THE END OF THE WORLD!

Overpopulation (which, btw isn't a thing -- not even when it was proposed) would lead to a Soylent Green planet of mass famine, starvation, violence and THE END OF THE WORLD!

The Man-caused New Ice Age was going to bury us all in sheets of ice and snow, mass death and extinctions and THE END OF THE WORLD!

Acid Rain (which was a not that impressive localized effect) was blown out of proportion and people thought that Sulfuric Acid was raining out of the clouds, all the plants will DIE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!

Killer Bees -- oh yes, SNL did a great skit, but in Middle School we were taught that hive migrations of aggressive Africanized bees would kill ALL of the domesticated bees, collapsing commercial food production and we will all starve as clouds of Killer Bees make our cities unlivable – IT's THE END OF THE WORLD!

Every time. I even became an eco-kid to save the planet, cleaned up ponds and highways, counted animal populations. But I noticed that the current SCARY THING was always replaced by a new SCARY THING, and the new SCARY THING was THE END OF THE WORLD, so we have to ACT NOW!

Always act now…always give the fearmongers more power and money…and then on to the next fear and the next fear.

It's been over 50 years since I was told the End of the World was Nigh…do we need to go another 50 years of never fulfilled sonorous predictions of doom and ACT NOW! over one thing, then the next and the next???

10.

Because of all the people here who put 0. There is still a lot of ignorance on the issue and resistance to doing anything about it until it is too late.

0.

@platypus -- "There is still a lot of ignorance on the issue and resistance to doing anything about it until it is too late."

As I said been hearing the same song for almost all of my 56 years on this little rock spinning 'round the Sun -- and by many of the same people (Erlich, for example), who have been consistently apocalyptic and wrong. And they seamlessly move onto the next eco-clypse and the next and the next. But oh well, maybe in another 50 years you too will tire of the same old sermon, the same old demand to repent, and the same demand to empty your wallets onto the tithing plate…

10 I'll be dead before it gets really bad, probably killed in an unseasonal heatwave. But I have kids.

I imagine the people fishing bodies out destroyed houses in Italy right now are quite concerned as well.

The current economic and political system has no incentive to do anything about it before the next election cycle.

@platypus01au

I guess what the answers tell us is "this is how people who are signed up to TMP think about climate change" rather than anything about climate change itself. I imagine that most of us are towards the upper end of the age spectrum. Ultimately it'll be what younger people think that matters.

Because of all the people here who put 0. There is still a lot of ignorance on the issue and resistance to doing anything about it until it is too late.

So, what are you waiting for to do anything? Do you need politicians to take away your rights and liberties first? If every 10 would stop talking and actually do (or not do as appropriate) something wouldn't we be halfway there?

I'm tired of rich people who still buy waterfront properties and fly private jets lecturing me. I'm tiredofpeople wagging their fingerin my face screeching loudly that we need to stop using fossil fuel while enjoying all the benefits from that. Lead by example.

So, depending on the article, the arctic was going to be ice free by 2013 tob2018. Last I checked, there was still ice there. So, I have an idea for the 10s and 0s: why don't the 10s use their predictions to tell us what it will be like in 5 years. If they are right, we can all live in caves and have no freedom. If they are wrong, then they are full of like we already know.

So, 2028, what's it going to be?

I love how that XCD timeline conveniently begins in the late Ice Age, rather than during, oh, say the Cretaceous, Triassic, or Jurassic eras of the dinosaurs, when the Earth was much, much, much warmer.

Don't forget, that in order for a glacial valley to form, there had to have been a time when there was no glacier at all. So the Earth must have been much, much warmer than it is today for a period of cooling to introduce glaciers that would move down normal geologic mountainous upthrusts to carve away the rock into a nice convenient bowl shape, and then retreat significantly as the Earth warmed later.

Global climate alarmist always start the measurement at the point which makes their fears look the worst.

But you can't do that with a planetary climate and have accurate science— you have to start at the formation of the planet. Not hundreds of thousands of years ago, not even millions of years ago, but BILLIONS of years ago. So call me when you have a chart that starts at 4,000,000,000 BC. Otherwise your clever little comic book chart isn't worth the moderate chuckles the joke about extinct North American Pokémon produces.

Always interesting to me when I see arguments about climate change.
Usual argument is that the earth has always changed temperature which is correct followed by doom and gloom predictions of ice melting etc which did not come to fruition which is also correct.

Several points that I find missed are that humanity has only been around for not that long in earth's history and was not around during previous warm cycles that are described in those arguments. It is the impact on humanity and current/future society which is where my concerns lie (the fossil record is filled with extinct species after all). The rate of temperature change can outpace the rate of evolutionary change which is why crops grow in different locations, crabs migrate to different locations fish stocks decrease or migrate. Weather patters change so famine occurs or fresh water reservoirs are not replenished (water use has also changed drastically due to population stressors such as farming or just population density).

So I see it as a concern and I think improving industrial efficiency is a good idea as a whole that would slow down climate change and enable adjustments to be made.

10

I'm tired of rich people who still buy waterfront properties and fly private jets lecturing me.

Good point -- let me know when Banks stop supporting 30-year mortgages for Beach Front Property like Obama's three sea-side estates, eh?

4
While global warming activists expound repeatedly that we are ignoring the "science" that clearly indicates that climate change with destroy the planet, the science they quote is usually anecdotal or based on models that have not been shown to predict anything. Atmospheric level of CO2 is steadily increasing with no slackening whatsoever relative to attempts by governments to change production sources. It does appear that average global temperature has increased by .5 C since the 1970s, with an odd dozen year pause between 2002 and 2014. Arctic sea ice looks to be at about 13M km2, maybe 2.3% below the 1981 thru 2010 median line for this date, certainly not the ICE FREE ARCTIC! that has been screamed about for the past 20 years, and I would think hardly noticeable from a navigation or polar bear annoyance standpoint. Here in Houston, we have had the quietest decade for hurricanes that we have seen in a long time, and I'll quote from and interesting study by Vecchi and Knutsen, "We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero," Something is happening, but I believe the attempt to understand and respond to climate change has been more thwarted than aided by the wildly overblown and excessive statements of the global warming extremists, who seem to have taken over the media.

So if you believe it will happen and your prediction is unless this, this and this are done by 2035.. catastrophe!

But not all is done by 2035 and let us say, 2036 rolls by and …. No disaster.😮 Do you then say: "we were wrong.", or do you say instead: "see it didn't happen because we fixed it enough that we delayed it by 10 years, BUT IN Another…. !"

Greta already deleted some of her stuff.

"Thunberg did delete a tweet from her account from 2018 that read, "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years."

Yes, on June 21, 2018, Thunberg tweeted a link to a now deleted article on the website GritPost bearing the headline, "Top Climate Scientist: Humans Will Go Extinct if We Don't Fix Climate Change by 2023." The GritPost article rehashed content originally published on Forbes about a seminar given by James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric science, at the University of Chicago in 2018.

As reported by Forbes, Anderson's talk focused on the need for a massive effort to curb climate change over the next five years:

Based on Internet Archive records, the GritPost article to which Thunberg linked was deleted sometime after July 2020. Thunberg deleted her tweet sometime after Mar. 7, 2023. Thunberg did not respond to Snopes' request for comment. "

So if things don't work out how you want… you just try, try again?

The debate has been going on for some time and among the general public it is a hot one as can be seen by this thread, which includes a fair amount of ad hominem and anecdotal fallacies. However unbelievable it may seem now with our polarized society (in the US anyway) there was once consensus on global warming and climate science. But as with anything involving money the well gets corrupted.

Now we have side A all doom and gloom and side B denying its' existence and claiming that side A wants your job and car!

As usual the truth is somewhere in the middle. Of course, one cannot ignore the consensus of the global scientific community that climate change is here now affecting the weather and is human driven.

I'll just leave you some facts on the history and science in studies and position papers from scientific organizations:

This first link provides a good history of the policies and reaction to the issue.

link

link

climate.gov

link

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Since many here are skeptical of anything the US govt does here is the international panel report:

ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr

@Texaswalker, despite the odd outlier questioning the science the experts overwhelmingly agree that human caused change is occurring. The AIP paper provides a history of the opposition views.

This is not some disaster movie with a single catastrophic event the change is gradual and the effects already here for some people. Personally, I would go with a 5/10. Change will happen and people will adapt.

My trust in the US Government reports is 1000 times higher than my trust in ANY "international" political document put out under the auspices of the United Nations, aka Local Dictators Union #226.
And, for the record, no, I don't automatically trust statements put out by political appointees of any stripe. The past three years should have at least taught us all that.

Some interesting articles, or not. 🙂

"Captain the earth can only give you 20% more power. You must do something quickly."

"Damn the cost Jim! We're saving the world here man!!!"

Subject: World's Biggest Seller of Carbon Offsets Accused of Being a Scam | Frontpage Mag

link

Subject: GOP urged to denounce ‘alarmist' UN climate change report

link

Subject: Chinese tech companies are exploiting US green energy goals, former State Department officials warn

link

Subject: Climate Cultists Blame Global Warming on Rice by Cristina Laila

link

Subject: Electric vehicles may be too heavy for old parking garages: report

link

Subject: Studies Show Wind Farms Raise Temperatures, And Impact Could Become Significant As More Are Built | Your Wyoming News Source

link

Subject: Wind energy developer funneled cash to Dem senator pushing offshore wind

link

The hidden costs of EVs: Ohio man gets $42,000 USD repair bill after fender bender in electric truck

link

Subject: Recycling plastics might be making things worse

link

Parzival, you trust the US government on Climate Change??

It was June 1965 when Aramco went to the US government to explain what burning fossil fuels was doing to the worlds atmosphere and what was going to happen in the future. They ignored it, they would, after all, be dead by the time anything mattered.

Later in 1965 Royal Dutch Shell went to both the UK and Netherlands governments to give them the same method. Same response.

I admire your enthusiasm and commitment though.

Since all the kool kids are weighing in, I guess I will to.

I put it at a 7. My concern isn't that we will have a runaway greenhouse effect, like Venus. But I'm more concerned about the level of economic and humanitarian disruption this will cause. If you conservatives think illegal immigration into the US is an invasion, wait until climate change severely disrupts the economies of some of those southern countries, and force migrants to look for other places to survive economically.

Increased economic instability in the world will likely also fuel increased violence and war (which, unironically, will further fuel economic instability). For the people griping about how taking action on climate change comes with an economic cost, I would argue the cost for doing nothing will be greater. And this impact will be felt by your children and/or grandchildren. Not by you (and for those that say, "I don't care; I'll be dead," how selfish could someone be?)

Criticism of the XKCD comic that it does not reach back to the Cretaceous period, where indeed it was warmer, is irrelevant. What the comic is trying to point out isn't that the Earth was warmer in the past, but that the RATE OF CHANGE has increased dramatically.

Final counter-argument. Claims about how climate change will bring more land under cultivation may be a distinct possibility, but one thing you CANNOT predict is how the destabilization of former agricultural regions will do to the economy. As I mentioned before, climate change may cause mass migration as people seek areas where they can economically survive. With illegal immigration (and for some people, legal immigration -- lets not forget that asylum seekers are following a LEGAL process for immigration) being a big issue, how do you think Canada will feel about hordes of displaced Central Americans, and maybe Floridians, Texans, etc, trying to cross the border to get some of that sweet farmland around the Hudson Bay area?

These are the problems and reasons why I think it is a concern.

Damon.

DeRuyter,
Please don't misunderstand my post, I am not denying that the climate is changing, global temperature yearly averages have increased over the last 50 years, looks like about .5C to me. Your point that the truth is probably in the middle lines up with my opinion. But the overblown hyperbole thrown out by many media types and billed as "science" controverts rational attempts to address the issue.

Parzival, you trust the US government on Climate Change??

No. Read my post again. I said I trusted them more than I do the UN. But that's a very low bar.

I do NOT automatically trust the US government agencies whenever politics are a driving factor, and my distrust has only grown over the last few years. It's become obvious that statements are made and guided based on political power-seeking, not on actual science. Political cronies are put in charge of the agencies, not scientists. The reports are generated to please whomever is at the top for the current four year cycle, but most of all to preserve the jobs of the bureaucracy. Facts, logic, and considered science do not matter. Look at the nonsense with COVID. Yes, you need masks, no you don't, yes you do and you have to wear three of them; no, you should not trust a vaccine developed under that administration but yes you should trust the vaccine now that there's a new administration; yes, this vaccine will stop you from getting COVID, no, the vaccine will only stop you from spreading COVID, no, it won't do that, but maybe it will help you survive COVID, which came from bats in a wet market, no, it didn't, it came from caves, it didn't come from a lab leak in China, oh wait, maybe it did come from a lab leak in China, but we shouldn't even be discussing where it came from because that's racist, and stop looking at the money we gave to that lab to research coronaviruses in bats, that's not important, this pandemic will go on for decades, no wait, it's over, unless we change our minds and say it's not… All of that put forth by the US government over the course of two years or so.

So, no, I do not currently feel a high level of trust in the US government.

But I trust international government bodies dominated by totalitarian socialist dictatorships with the goal of world domination even less. And I'm right to do so.

I note, by the way, that no one has addressed the following facts:

The amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere AND crust combined, is essentially static, and has been unchanged since the Earth was formed 4 billion years ago.

The carbon in the crust which is used for fuel is all entirely fossil fuels— meaning, literally, that it consists of carbon originally fixed in living things which died and were covered by sediment layers over millions of years.

The carbon which came from said living things was fixed into the living things from atmospheric carbon, also over millions of years.

That means that ALL the carbon from fossil fuels— every last atom of it— was at one time entirely in the Earth's atmosphere (as methane gas) BEFORE LIFE BEGAN.

And, despite ALL that carbon being in the atmosphere, and the Sun being considerably hotter, the Earth did NOT enter a runaway greenhouse state. Instead, life began, and fixed the atmospheric carbon into the cells of living things— first, single cell organisms, and later multi-called organisms, which would eventually become plants and animals.

And Garand, you misunderstood my point. The rate of change may seem rapid, BUT you and the chart haven't actually dealt with the truth— we are STILL in a comparative Ice Age next to the "normal" state of Earth's climate going back several billion years, and even if we stop in the time period when Earth had considerable plant life and animal life in a state of climate condition in which men could easily thrive. The world might need to be an enormous nudist camp, but it wouldn't kill us.

In fact, we don't actually know the rate of change of the Earth's climate for any thing prior to the 16th century, because NOBODY HAD THERMOMETERS to record temperature data with.
And once Mercury thermometers were developed, we still don't have any accurate global data until the mid to late 20th century, because nobody was actually measuring and recording global climate conditions on a regular, consistent basis. What was the average yearly temperature in London in the 14th Century? 15th Century? 16th? 17th? Nobody knows. Nobody can know. We can make suppositions, maybe even come close… but within single decimal ranges of C? No. That's impossible, and any one who claims otherwise is deluding themselves.

So the XCKD comic strip timeline is about as accurate as trying to use a sundial as a stop watch. We are estimating the temperature ranges for an entire planet based on a very limited sample base and derived information, not actual temperature levels themselves.
Also, we do not know the rate of changes in the past, certainly not prior to the development of written language and numerals among humans. We're guessing, and that's all.
So that long straight line going down the comic chart? That's bunkum. We don't know that it was straight, we don't know that it wasn't more like a roller coaster or a sine wave. We just think we do, because we're taking limited, derived information (not actual data) and arbitrarily deciding that it applies over extended periods (which we have no actual data on) without any natural fluctuation.
How in the heck do we know that? How do we know it didn't actually swing rapidly up and down over various decades or even centuries in a span of a million years, or even just a few thousand?
The truth is, we can't know that it didn't. WE DO NOT HAVE THE DATA.

So, is the temperature rising rapidly now? Define "rapidly" and define the rise.
Even if we accept that it is doing so, we do not actually know whether such changes are natural or not, because we have no actual, consistent, global data from the extended past on which to base such a judgement.

This whole thing is a house of cards, and so politicized it's impossible to make an accurate judgment as to what is correct, what is exaggerated pessimism, what is exaggerated optimism, and what is just plain false. But we have politicians and dictators more than ready to use this "crisis" to expand their power and corruption. And to me, that is a far worse danger than anything "climate change" is likely to do.

It's worth noting that examples like acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer only became less of an issue because governments did something.

0

For many of the reasons listed above already.

I will comment on those presenting "science" to back up their position on climate change. All too often in my life I have seen handpicked panels of so called "experts" that suddenly come to one unanimous conclusion. There is a reason they are handpicked they will parrot the party line if they want to be paid or receive future grant money from the government. No one with an opposing view will be on the panel. There will be no opposing hypothesis that can be considered. Data is selectively edited and bashed to control and present the party narrative.

This applies to so called "independent think tanks" also. They are not so independent; they answer to who is paying them and told the results and conclusions they must come to.

It is not just science that has this problem I have worked in a variety of fields (Government and Private Sector). Controlling the narrative destroying any opposing viewpoint is critical to maintaining power. Once I determine someone is trying to control the narrative or been paid off they burn all their credibility in my eyes for that topic and probably many future topics.

I put it at a 7. My concern isn't that we will have a runaway greenhouse effect, like Venus.

I think you don't need to worry about that. It didn't happen when there were 4000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere so the current 400 are unlikely to do that.

Parzival, an excellent response. There's parties with vested interests in promoting or denying anthopogenic climate change (the crux of the theory and associated guilt trip is that we humans have caused all this), and both sides lie like drunken sailors about the "facts".

Parzival +1. I'm with the 0 crowd. Old enough to remember all the TEOWAKI scenarios that were blathered by the media as I grew up.

0 Not interested in the cult. I remember being told of global cooling in the 70's. Only for it to come back again. Just a means of control (such as removing gas stoves!)

"Rome Mayor Roberto Gualtieri applauded Rome Capital Police authorities in a Facebook post for stopping the activists and likely avoiding any permanent damage to the fountain's porous marble.

Gualtieri said the "indifferent environmental damage" caused by activists has prompted the fountain to undergo a complex and costly cleaning operation that could result in waste of 300,000 liters of water to empty and refill the pool again, which functions to recycle water."

Subject: Rome Mayor Says Climate Activists Cause ‘Environmental Damage' After Turning Trevi Fountain Water Black Using Charcoal


link

0

A little more

Subject: Ice core samples reveal that UN IPCC climate models picked the 8,000 year low of global temperatures on which to base their absurd "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) cult


link

I always wonder why climate deniers wouldn't agree that just in case they are wrong, we should go ahead and take the recommended actions. How would that do any harm? It would do a lot of good even if they were right. Which they are not.

OC

"I always wonder why climate deniers wouldn't agree that just in case they are wrong, we should go ahead and take the recommended actions."

Since you asked. I won't speak for others, but here is my answer.

Well there was a large flood that happened long, long, long ago. It could happen again. Shouldn't we all have to own a boat large enough to hold our families and at least 20 animals, plus 40 nights of food? It has at least happened once before. Earthquakes happen, shouldn't we all have to have mandatory earthquake insurance and have earthquake resistant housing, no matter the areas risk and no matter the cost? Earthquakes happen often. Now none of this may ever happen, "but how could it do any harm."

Those of us who don't buy into global warming don't force you to give up appliances, vehicles, yard implements, revamp your home heating and air conditioning, etc.. Those who do believe, force the rest of us to make these changes and adhere to their beliefs and personal fears.

Now if those who believe in GW want to pay the costs for all those changes for the rest of us who don't believe, but are forced to make the changes anyway, then I will go along.

I will be happy to get a free new electric car, washer, dryer, battery lawn mower and a brand new energy efficient electric range. All Of my own choice of course. 😉 I'll start with one of those Teslas 🙂

"How would that do any harm?"

I listed them. Then I realized that they were as political as all get out, even though I mention no one but Putin by name. I am left to conclude that OC is being facetious. Or he seriously does not know, which may be even worse.

I refuse to fall into that trap. List deleted.

I always wonder why climate deniers wouldn't agree that just in case they are wrong, we should go ahead and take the recommended actions. How would that do any harm? It would do a lot of good even if they were right. Which they are not.

What are the recommended actions?

What benefits can we expect from the recommended actions?

Wolfhag

11 after scanning over this thread…..

People are free to believe more or less what they like. Just don't expect reality to conform to them. To paraphrase opinion is worthless.

There probably is substance to the climate change predictions and I am worried for my kids' sake. HOWEVER …

In the 1970s scientists declared that there are only a couple of decades' worth of oil left in the ground … and here we are more than 50 years later!

But let's say we ARE heading for a rapid rise in temperatures and catastrophe, is there really an effective way of putting the brakes on it?

Let's see, what are the recommendation? Recycling? I go to great lengths to recycle materials. When in Australia a company announced that they are using recycled soft plastics to make outdoor furniture, I put a lot of effort into recycling not only my household soft plastics but also collecting soft plastics from work. A few months later the company went under and left hundreds of tons of collected soft plastics to be disposed of.

I do own a car but use public transport most of the time. Then I look around and see brand new high performance cars and massive SUVs driving around in ever increasing numbers, often with only one person inside. And don't get me started about electric vehicles. The electricity they use still predominantly comes from fossil fuels.

And while the West is tentatively trying to go green, other countries with massive populations are reaching levels of economy where the average person is now aspiring to own the same luxuries as those enjoyed for so many decades by the West.

Corporations everywhere profess to becoming more sustainable. I have worked for such companies; it's all smoke and mirrors. Sustainability is used as a marketing tool to entice you to buy their product in preference to another's. The reality is that the claimed sustainability is usually substantiated with creative accounting when in real terms, the impact is minimal.

And then there's governments and the carbon tax. Really? As if creating new taxes is going to arrest the temperature rise. Nothing more than another excuse for revenue raising under the guise of climate action. God only knows what pet political projects those funds will be diverted to. And while those few countries are hamstringing their economy with conscience placating taxes and restrictions, other countries are gleefully ramping up their economic development with ballooning carbon emissions or widespread deforestation. And others, in a bid to grab valuable resources, go to war and cause further emissions from prodigious military fuel expenditure and combustion of propellants and explosives in the course of operations.

Then there is the elephant in the room which no country is willing to even mention. That elephant is called over population. Industrialisation would only impact the climate if it is on a massive scale, driven by a massive population. But which country will be willing to take serious measures to cut back population when that's going to adversely impact economic growth and render it weaker next to its neighbours? Can you imagine, the furore by the economists, civil libertarians and religions?

These are just a few examples of why I don't believe we have a snowball's hope in hell of fixing this if it's really broken. I hope it's not … for my kid's sake.

0

"The ongoing United Nations COP28 climate summit in Dubai is offering a wide variety of gourmet food options from vendors who serve beef, even as it prepares a report that is expected to call for the West to reduce consumption of beef.
According to the summit's online portal, its food offerings include "juicy beef," "slabs of succulent meat," smoked wagyu burgers, Philly cheesesteaks and "melt-in-your-mouth BBQ" in addition to African street BBQ, fast casual Mexican fare and an Asian option that has a "touch of French flair." The revelation comes as the U.N. faces criticism for preparing a first-of-its-kind report that is expected to be published at the summit and calls for lower meat consumption."

" Why are people still flying to climate conferences by private jet?

Rishi Sunak, David Cameron and King Charles are just three of the more than 70,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries at the latest UN climate summit in Dubai, COP28. But they are among hundreds who will have traveled there by private jet. In fact, the UK prime minister, foreign secretary and king even traveled in three separate planes.

At COP27 in Egypt last year, around 315 private jet journeys took place. This is an extraordinary statistic, especially as fewer world leaders attended that COP, as many were busy at a G20 summit in Bali."

Subject: China builds more new coal plants than rest of the world : NPR


link

Ahh yes, the practice the old: rules for thee, not for me.

0

The UK should index its emissions reductions to the mean of those achieved by China, India and the USA. Assuming climate change is a problem (and not just a minor nuisance in 100 years' time or a benefit), if these countries don't reduce, it matters not a jot whether we do or not. If they do reduce, then we can do the same.

Meanwhile, in these colder months, if you live next door to anyone elderly don't forget to pop in, see if they're OK and while you're there turn their thermostat down. It's to save the planet.

Reductions?

link

Several decades ago, it was really cold in winter where I live. Now it is not. It rains a lot more, and very hard at times. The river floods more. More wind damage. Wildfire smoke can last weeks, burns my throat. Variations in climate happen. It's not that the climate is not changing, it's "why" that drives these conversation clashes.

Data on the data shows mostly that science is very convinced the climate is changing, man made causes. Too much to be a conspiracy. But it's the doomsday predictions that I don't buy. I coach at a college where kids have new majors, very future oriented. They don't care about political BS. They are passionate about getting to work.

There are lots of solutions coming along to a lot of things. AI will play a role, not always evil. Computer tech has impacted the speed of everything, just beginning still. Yes there is climate change. We will figure it out in a couple of generations is my guess.

@ etothepi

Since the biggest CO2 emitter is continuing to increase its emissions, our reducing ours will cripple our economy and make no difference. So there's no point, and much harm in doing so.

We should reduce only if others do, and in proportion.

Since the biggest CO2 emitter is continuing to increase its emissions, our reducing ours will cripple our economy

Maybe. One of the major reasons China has never agreed to emissions reductions is that they are subsuming manufacturing from a lot of other places. We've displaced our pollution to someone else (very California of us), an in this case, someone who does much more ecological damage than we would. BTW, this (and nothing that we would recognize as labor laws) is the prime driver on why things cost less from China, not shoddy workmanship and poor materials (which are still a significant driver).

China, however, relies on Western technological innovation. Communist systems are not good at that. They are, however, good at pivoting production to integrate new advancements cine state control of the means of production and distribution of wealth does not require workers to agree to anything. This also leads to a lot of waste of resources that would have to be recapitalized or at least cleaned up in a non-Communist system.

I would have to know what you mean by "cripple our economy" to judge how likely that is.

Screwing (and killing) the poor, however, is a big outcome. More sustainable systems require more effort, and thus raise cost of production. In a Fascist system (compatible with many economic systems), you can just dictate "good" profit margins and take up some of the slack. Even so, this just moves the baseline degrees of freedom, but doesn't change the nature of the dynamic. That, however, just slows innovation and growth.