Climate Change is here and man made

[Chippy_boy]

This is where there needs to be far more coverage of this. Not more moaning about the current coverage of it, more coverage, more awareness, more action.

I suggest that is impossible. In fact I'd also suggest people are so overwhelmed with the constant stream of it, they are numb to it now. A bit like Coronavirus news - people are sick of hearing about it. That's not to say people don't care about the planet, but other than "doing their bit" then there's not much any individual can do about it.

I don't think further coverage - were it possible, but isn't anyway - would have any effect other than to make people even more numb to it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Uninformed group think? Scientists worldwide who believe there needs to be huge change to tackle climate change and other green issues are in the vast majority compared to those who don’t. My comment about indifference was talking about the world as a whole, including governments, not about this thread.

Probably because there is no public appetite at all for the dramatic changes to peoples' way of life that would be needed. Stuffing your used plastic bottles into a seperate bin? Sure no problem. Taking 2 hours to get to work and 2 hours back on public transport every day, instead of the 40 mins round trip in your car? Not such much.

Let alone the not buying the new trainers, or the next TV, or the new car or the new shirt, or the new anything, because it was all made using energy from fossil fuels, sent to the port using energy from fossil fuels, shipped using fossil fuels, trunked up the M6 using fossil fuels and dropped off by Amazon. Using fossil fuels. Or how about never going on a plane ever again?

The changes needed are incompatible with peoples' daily lives and no government will impose sudden changes which guarantee them losing the next election. Therefore change is necessarily more gradual than scientists would urge.

 

[grunge]

It is 'regulated' through MARPOL, but I don't think it goes far enough.

I dont think that covers the type of fuel they use in terms of air pollution, seems to be more relating to spillage level pollution.

tankers use the cheapest shittest fuel going.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I dont think that covers the type of fuel they use in terms of air pollution, seems to be more relating to spillage level pollution.

tankers use the cheapest shittest fuel going.

MARPOL Annex VI does. Problem is I don't know how they're going to enforce it.

 

[inbetween]

I'd top myself now if I were you mate. Save all the grief etc.

It's only the truth unfortunately mate. I will be able to enjoy my life, the greater effects of this are perhaps 50 years away so I can only hope that our kids will be able to do the same. Let's hope they are clever enough to work out how to blast billions of tons of rubbish into space or maybe they will invent cars that run off sea water?

Perhaps the only remaining option is to dismiss it, remain ignorant and enjoy it whilst it lasts..

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's only the truth unfortunately mate. I will be able to enjoy my life, the greater effects of this are perhaps 50 years away so I can only hope that our kids will be able to do the same. Let's hope they are clever enough to work out how to blast billions of tons of rubbish into space or maybe they will invent cars that run off sea water?

Perhaps the only remaining option is to dismiss it, remain ignorant and enjoy it whilst it lasts..

I'm not sure whether I should say, "This is the case", or "Sadly, this is the case".

Anyway, I am cautiously optimistic. The IPCC says some changes are now irreversible. Even that I think is not true, because what they mean is "are now irreversible in the short term". That I accept: Ice will continue to melt and seas will continue to rise. But to suggest Icecaps can NEVER grow again? Nonsense, of course they can. So it is reversible, just not any time soon.

But other effects I think will be very reversible. "Climate Repair" is a huge growth area and I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of man, over the next 50 to 100 years, to figure out how to bring CO2 levels down. Even to bring them down dramatically if needed. In my own mind I am certain we can and will do so.

 

[ballbag]

I think you have limited imagination.

View attachment 23410

View attachment 23411

Like you ;-) ... I cannot imagine what technology we could develop over the next 100 or 200 years as needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects alarmists like to bandy around.

"Someone will save us"

 

[inbetween]

I'm not sure whether I should say, "This is the case", or "Sadly, this is the case".

Anyway, I am cautiously optimistic. The IPCC says some changes are now irreversible. Even that I think is not true, because what they mean is "are now irreversible in the short term". That I accept: Ice will continue to melt and seas will continue to rise. But to suggest Icecaps can NEVER grow again? Nonsense, of course they can. So it is reversible, just not any time soon.

But other effects I think will be very reversible. "Climate Repair" is a huge growth area and I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of man, over the next 50 to 100 years, to figure out how to bring CO2 levels down. Even to bring them down dramatically if needed. In my own mind I am certain we can and will do so.

But again we say that nothing is beyond the wit of man but we are sprinting onward and it's not like we don't know that it's happening. We don't even need technology, we just need to work out how to stop at the stop sign.

I live up the road from one of the largest new estates in the country, it was once brown field land (Chorley ROF). They could of turned it into woodland or a park but instead it became a massive housing estate including loads of factories and so on. In 1930 there were just fields, no roads, no houses, nothing and now it's 4 square miles of concrete.

This is happening up and down the country, not just with houses but warehouses, production sites, factories, it's endless. How can you replace the total destruction of habitats and loss of species with technology?

The only technology that can help us is a time machine.

 

[Chippy_boy]

"Someone will save us"

Indeed they will. Count on it.

 

[grunge]

MARPOL Annex VI does. Problem is I don't know how they're going to enforce it.

Missed that.

Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005)​

Sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter. A chapter adopted in 2011 covers mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.

There are plenty of reports out there about how bad they are, seems to be something that needs to be worked on for sure.

 

[grunge]

But again we say that nothing is beyond the wit of man but we are sprinting onward and it's not like we don't know that it's happening. We don't even need technology, we just need to work out how to stop at the stop sign.

I live up the road from one of the largest new estates in the country, it was once brown field land (Chorley ROF). They could of turned it into woodland or a park but instead it became a massive housing estate including loads of factories and so on. In 1930 there were just fields, no roads, no houses, nothing and now it's 4 square miles of concrete.

This is happening up and down the country, not just with houses but warehouses, production sites, factories, it's endless. How can you replace the total destruction of habitats and loss of species with technology?

The only technology that can help us is a time machine.

I realise this isn't the point your making but tech wise, But, Fusion, Fusion will help if and when we get it working. we could replace all electrical supplies very very quickly once we do. clean and plentiful electricity for all and the ability to power CO2 scrubbers to actively remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

the biggest hurdle will be how to get around the legalities of patents etc if its a company that makes it 1st so it can be user globally for as cheap as possible,

 

[Chippy_boy]

But again we say that nothing is beyond the wit of man but we are sprinting onward and it's not like we don't know that it's happening. We don't even need technology, we just need to work out how to stop at the stop sign.

I live up the road from one of the largest new estates in the country, it was once brown field land (Chorley ROF). They could of turned it into woodland or a park but instead it became a massive housing estate including loads of factories and so on. In 1930 there were just fields, no roads, no houses, nothing and now it's 4 square miles of concrete.

This is happening up and down the country, not just with houses but warehouses, production sites, factories, it's endless. How can you replace the total destruction of habitats and loss of species with technology?

The only technology that can help us is a time machine.

Not so mate.

The world may look like its covered in concrete but it really isn't. There's VAST tracts of greenery which outweigh our urban sprawl. Here in the UK - one of the most built upon countries on planet earth, 94% of land is green space, and 6% is built on.

EDIT: Or less than 6% :

Five mind-blowing facts about what the UK looks like

New research reveals, in greater detail than ever, just how the UK's land is used.

www.bbc.co.uk

And then you look at places like Russia. 17 million square kilometers of vastness. it is 70 times bigger than the UK, and perhaps 10 times less densely built up. Ditto Canada, ditto Brazil etc. The world is green (and blue of course).

As to your comment about we don't even need the technology (to limit climate change)? Well actually we do. Why? Because making the dramatic and wide-ranging changes needed WITHOUT new technology to help us manager or reverse the changes, is simply not palatable to enough humans.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Missed that.


There are plenty of reports out there about how bad they are, seems to be something that needs to be worked on for sure.

Some ships are truly shocking in the amount of sh*te they pump out. Often poorly maintained, inefficient engines,fuelled by the worst possible high sulphur content industrial-grade fuel oil.

I've heard tales of ships which are transporting waste oil actually supplementing their legitimate fuel supply with the waste oil they've been carrying.

 

[west didsblue]

he is a bit of a one trick pony pardon the pun, if its not you or me or Bigga or whoever else he will pick on some one else who he thinks watches Fox news to call a fuckwit who knows nothing about nothing.

I am waiting for the climate alarmist equals climate denier tag after having googled the synonyms of both words and convincing himself they are a synonym for its shows you know nothing and how good am I westy of fode or whoever I told them didn't I , I expect a like.

Must have been a big fan of John Banner I reckon and once its posted he gets off his high until the next fix takes over.

Actually I don't mind him , he amuses me with his vocab which is devoid of expression if you remove the vitriol out of it but he wouldn't like me saying that as he cannot let the side down.

Is that one of your deliberately garbled nonsense posts that you've put there just to see if anyone pulls you up on it, or did you not realise that it was incoherent rubbish?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I realise this isn't the point your making but tech wise, But, Fusion, Fusion will help if and when we get it working. we could replace all electrical supplies very very quickly once we do. clean and plentiful electricity for all and the ability to power CO2 scrubbers to actively remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

the biggest hurdle will be how to get around the legalities of patents etc if its a company that makes it 1st so it can be user globally for as cheap as possible,

Absolutely. It's all about energy. Once we have fusion, we have effectively limitless clean energy. Not only does that at a stroke almost completely eradicate our CO2 output in itself, it also provides near limitless energy to power carbon capture "devices" - be they enormous machines, or vast bio-engineered floating algae tanks covering thousands of square kilometers, or whatever else you care to dream up.

 

[stonerblue]

Not so mate.

The world may look like its covered in concrete but it really isn't. There's VAST tracts of greenery which outweigh our urban sprawl. Here in the UK - one of the most built upon countries on planet earth, 94% of land is green space, and 6% is built on.

EDIT: Or less than 6% :

Five mind-blowing facts about what the UK looks like

New research reveals, in greater detail than ever, just how the UK's land is used.

www.bbc.co.uk

And then you look at places like Russia. 17 million square kilometers of vastness. it is 70 times bigger than the UK, and perhaps 10 times less densely built up. Ditto Canada, ditto Brazil etc. The world is green (and blue of course).

As to your comment about we don't even need the technology (to limit climate change)? Well actually we do. Why? Because making the dramatic and wide-ranging changes needed WITHOUT new technology to help us manager or reverse the changes, is simply not palatable to enough humans.

I'll remember that for the next immigration thread ta.

 

[stonerblue]

Is that one of your deliberately garbled nonsense posts that you've put there just to see if anyone pulls you up on it, or did you not realise that it was incoherent rubbish?

I gave her a 'like'..

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

he is a bit of a one trick pony pardon the pun, if its not you or me or Bigga or whoever else he will pick on some one else who he thinks watches Fox news to call a fuckwit who knows nothing about nothing.

I am waiting for the climate alarmist equals climate denier tag after having googled the synonyms of both words and convincing himself they are a synonym for its shows you know nothing and how good am I westy of fode or whoever I told them didn't I , I expect a like.

Must have been a big fan of John Banner I reckon and once its posted he gets off his high until the next fix takes over.

Actually I don't mind him , he amuses me with his vocab which is devoid of expression if you remove the vitriol out of it but he wouldn't like me saying that as he cannot let the side down.

Are you still sitting in your mess from yesterday?

Banging away on that legacy laptop may distract you from the smell but it won't stop it going crusty.

Call your carer's agency if she is still not picking up.

 

[west didsblue]

I gave her a 'like'..

You’ll be doing the same for Bigga next!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Not so mate.

The world may look like its covered in concrete but it really isn't. There's VAST tracts of greenery which outweigh our urban sprawl. Here in the UK - one of the most built upon countries on planet earth, 94% of land is green space, and 6% is built on.

EDIT: Or less than 6% :

Five mind-blowing facts about what the UK looks like

New research reveals, in greater detail than ever, just how the UK's land is used.

www.bbc.co.uk

And then you look at places like Russia. 17 million square kilometers of vastness. it is 70 times bigger than the UK, and perhaps 10 times less densely built up. Ditto Canada, ditto Brazil etc. The world is green (and blue of course).

As to your comment about we don't even need the technology (to limit climate change)? Well actually we do. Why? Because making the dramatic and wide-ranging changes needed WITHOUT new technology to help us manager or reverse the changes, is simply not palatable to enough humans.

94% is “green space”, but only 13% is woodland and 9.4% is peat bog. And it’s trees (big ones) and peat that are the best natural sources of carbon locking.

70% is farmland and it is farming that contributes most to climate change.
Therefore our 94% green space isn’t exactly doing our carbon footprint much good.

Britain (and Ireland) has some of the smallest percentages of woodland area in Europe



we could certainly do better as a country around this, rewooding our green spaces, especially if we want to lead the way on Green like we’ve said we want to.

And around Manchester we have some of the poorest air quality in Europe

Pollution levels in Manchester remain dangerously high despite lockdown, smart air quality sensors show

Manchester air pollution briefly tops European table | GC Business Growth Hub

Air quality in Manchester was temporarily the lowest in Western Europe on 8 September, just days before an EU financial watchdog warned that governments were failing to take sufficient action.

www.businessgrowthhub.com

and a lack of trees is certainly part of this.

And while only a small percentage of the land is urban, steel and concrete production to build the small urban footprint accounts for 8% and 6% (respectively) of the world’s total CO2 emissions.