If your point was that different countries will move at different speeds, then I agree. That’s historic fact, the stated intentions of nations, and also codified in the Paris agreement.
Climate Change is here and man made
- Thread starter SWP's back
- Start date
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
A stretch too far that I think.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
So not only producing more, but polluting more by exporting the stuff.I was talking about coal production of course we export more because we have the best and I wish we used more on our generation until we convert to nuclear overtime.
Profiling the six largest coal-producing countries around the world
China leads the way among the world's largest coal-producing countries, but several other regions account for significant output of this much-used resource.www.nsenergybusiness.com
No need to apologise Bazz.
Never said you make it up you just leap before you look.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
For perspective, by 3 inches in the last 30 years.
Deforestation has been slowing and maybe even reversed. What eco-systems exist on ice sheets?
True about over-fishing. I have no idea if your extrapolation is correct, but it is concerning to say the least.
Just random doom-mongering, or based on any actual science or evidence?
I don't recall him pretenting nothing's happening. Seems to me people like you are only happy if everyone is totally onboard with it being an unmitigated catastrophe, and who has no room for opinions which differ in thinking we will actually manage.
Already GB electricity is mostly low/non-carbon (now only circa 45% gas/other), and the non-carbon stuff is growing quickly. Electricity is the easiest sector to decarbonise, so the easiest way to decarbonise heat and transport is to electrify them.
Studies show that even as of now electric cars are better from an emissions point of view (including consideration from production to scrapping and everything in between). And as you’ve pointed out, it will become increasingly the case over the next few years as the low carbon electricity share increases.
I suspect cars, buses, trains, etc are a bigger impact on emissions than shipping and aviation just because of the sheer numbers of vehicles involved. Space and water heating are probably bigger again. Planes and boats will need more complex technologies to sort out, so better to go for the bigger ‘low hanging fruit’ first while the technology is being developed.
Its just a fact Bazz and I am not actually proud of it , its just that the production and exporting of it brings lots of income into the economy that means I can post to the likes of you on this forum albeit it is electricity intensive as Chippy correctly points out.
the quality of our coal is world class its why so many of those producers import our coal both thermal and coking.
like Pep and his team are world class Bazz although you are free to disagree.
We should be selling to China including iron ore at a much higher price than we are currently locked into.
I would prefer we used nuclear energy to supply the majority of our electricity needs supported by hydro and some renewable but we are were we are Bazz and you cannot chastise those who lives depends on coal production when its still the cheapest and most dispatchable form of energy production we have and we are a land dependant on freight heavily to get the goods our farmers produce to the places we buy them from.
We will phase out our reliance on coal over the decades but we need cheap and reliable replacement to avoid blackouts like the SA and NSW ones in recent times where they had to rely on gas and coal to keep the lights on.
As is said all are co2 intensive I don't deny that but so si many of the so called alternatives if not more so well documented on this forum by many informed posters in the past.
I am all for the reduction of pollution that has an impact on the climate even though as I have said as is always the case their are positives as well that eventuate from global warming in a number of areas well documented.
Have a read of the report that has stimulated the conversation today on this platform amongst us and you will surprised its not all doom and gloom.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
If the only place on earth affected was the UK I don’t think anyone would mind a bit of global warming! Projections suggest London will have a climate like Barcelona, and Manchester like Montevideo. Rainfall will be similar in terms of an annual total, but will fall in heavier shorter showers rather than pissing it down constantly. Sounds like a good upgrade to me.
The downside is more flooding but that can be mitigated by better defences and land management.
The only problems is it’s not just the UK, and for much of the world, including wildlife, the effects are quite a bit worse.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Thanks but it was the "mass crop failure within the next 100 years" comment I was querying.
Biodiversity is not climate change but while you mention its biodiversity tends to richer and fuller in warmer climates.Again just a fundamental lack of knowledge.
Please read up on how pandemics and biodiversity are linked - I never said it has a anything to do with temperatures.
Why deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely
Researchers want to use this information to predict and stop future outbreaks.www.nature.com
Again people continue to display a lack of knowledge on the gravity of the issue outside "temperatures".
Perhaps you can start a thread on biodiversity and the impacts of viruses on biodiversity.
You tend to make bland statements and go off on a tangent Bazz but again I like your passion.