Climate Change is here and man made

Interesting thread to read, a few decent debates in the last few weeks.

Probably worth acknowledging some things here. As much as people like to believe, your own personal effect on climate change is fairly minimal and while it certainly doesn't hurt to make some life changes, we're not going to solve the problem by a few million more people becoming vegan. I have respect for this personal sacrifice but it is very minimal in the scheme of things.

It's also worth acknowledging that climate science has become a minefield in terms of the general public. Many of the people who do talk about climate change on TV or social media also talk about broad ranging issues such as biodiversity, species extinction, meat factory production, food supplies, developing nations, etc and indeed there are a lot of anti-capitalists who try to legislate anti-capitalist legislation in the name of climate change. That's evidently true - the climate change debate has been politicised and is used in the same way that every other social issue is politicised; to get what the politicians and activists want to push through. While these may be semi-related issues to climate science, they are not climate science.

However just because the science is politicised does not mean that the science is wrong or skewed. Far from it. Yes some people are alarmist and want to use climate change to push through their own agenda but no, this doesn't make climate change false or any less of a real threat. It is a real threat - scientific research in lots of different industries across hundreds of thousands of researchers have all shown that it is a real and dangerous problem that solutions need to be engineered to prevent.

The solution to climate change in my opinion is always going to come from major technological advancement in renewable energy, in transport/logistical systems and in carbon dump technology. Our entire world is built on fossil fuels and that is what is changing on an industrial scale. People talk about the pollutants coming from China but they also fail to mention that China has more Green Energy billionaire entrepreneurs than any country in the world. They are the world leader in cutting edge green technology and they have been allowed to bring this competitive advantage because here climate change seems to be drawn across political rather than scientific lines. Usually when there's a problem in the world, the Governments in the West and elsewhere get together, start investing/subsidising those industries and those problems are solved or negated. That didn't happen to the fullest degree with climate change because the right in the US turned this into a tax conspiracy and the left turned it into an anti-capitalism march.

https://theconversation.com/china-wants-to-dominate-the-worlds-green-energy-markets-heres-why-89708

Today, five of the world’s six top solar-module manufacturers, five of the largest wind turbine manufacturers, and six of the ten major car manufacturers committed to electrification are all Chinese-owned. Meanwhile, China is dominant in the lithium sector – think: batteries, electric vehicles and so on – and a global leader in smart grid investment and other renewable energy technologies.
Click to expand...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5

In global energy rankings, one country stands out. China is the world’s hungriest consumer of energy worldwide — demanding the energetic equivalent of almost 3.3 billion tonnes of oil last year. Since 2011, it has burnt more coal than all other countries combined. And its reliance on this fossil fuel adds up: China emits around one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases, the largest share of any country.

But these figures are only part of the story: China is also the world’s most prolific producer of wind energy, with the capacity to make more than twice as much as the second-largest generator, the United States. And it has about one-third of the world’s solar-generation capacity, building more systems last year than any other country.

Rapid growth in its population and economy over decades, combined with a huge manufacturing industry and mass migration into street-lit, centrally heated cities, have turned China into a power-hungry nation. Recognizing this hunger and the damage that a long-term reliance on fossil fuels would have, the Chinese government has made plans to address the country’s energy needs. And science and technology — in fields such as battery technologies, photovoltaics and energy management — are at the heart of those plans.
Click to expand...

It's important to look at the Chinese strategy because I believe it is the correct one. We see many an activist talking about how we need to lower net energy demand in the West by making changes to our lives that facilitate this. The Chinese have gone the other way - they have publicly stated that they have no intention of using less energy and instead have dumped about 1% of their GDP into the investment in renewable energy technology which last I looked was the highest in the world of any major economy. Their solution is technological, in order to keep bringing the economic growth that energy usage brings. No veganism, no widespread legislative changes, just invest in a growing industry that has a bleeding edge of technology and subsidise them appropriately. It's ironic that to some degree, the Chinese are much more free market capitalists around climate change solutions than the West who have previously attempted top down solutions.

Climate change becoming an issue drawn across the left-right divide is one of the sadder issues in modern times and I believe comes from the influence of the neo-conservatives in the US and how the US culturally dominates the world. Their issues become our issues. In the UK, the Conservative Party have acknowledged and accepted climate science for decades and all of the Tory PMs over the past 30 years have attempted to invest in the sector.

It's worth noting that Margaret Thatcher had a degree in Analytical Chemistry. She worked in a lab. She understood science, scientific results and consensus. She was also the first world leader to speak out about the dangers of climate change in 1988





The point I'm trying to make here is that although in popular culture the science of climate change may well be politicised, and various lobbyist groups have attempted to use that in order to get their other goals, it doesn't mean that it should be labelled a conspiracy or a tax con or not really a problem. No matter if you're left or right, socialist or capitalist, monarchist or republican, Blue or Red, none of this matters. What matters is the science and everybody from all sides of the debate who can read and understand the science accepts the conclusions that we all hear about. We may sit and argue whether the Chinese policy of technological advance without lifestyle changes is the right one or whether it's the wrong one, that's fine, we've all got opinions on how to solve a problem. But to ignore or dismiss the problem because you don't agree with the intended solution that is set out or the agenda of the group that is pushing it is wrong.
 
Damocles said:
Interesting thread to read, a few decent debates in the last few weeks.

Probably worth acknowledging some things here. As much as people like to believe, your own personal effect on climate change is fairly minimal and while it certainly doesn't hurt to make some life changes, we're not going to solve the problem by a few million more people becoming vegan. I have respect for this personal sacrifice but it is very minimal in the scheme of things.

It's also worth acknowledging that climate science has become a minefield in terms of the general public. Many of the people who do talk about climate change on TV or social media also talk about broad ranging issues such as biodiversity, species extinction, meat factory production, food supplies, developing nations, etc and indeed there are a lot of anti-capitalists who try to legislate anti-capitalist legislation in the name of climate change. That's evidently true - the climate change debate has been politicised and is used in the same way that every other social issue is politicised; to get what the politicians and activists want to push through. While these may be semi-related issues to climate science, they are not climate science.

However just because the science is politicised does not mean that the science is wrong or skewed. Far from it. Yes some people are alarmist and want to use climate change to push through their own agenda but no, this doesn't make climate change false or any less of a real threat. It is a real threat - scientific research in lots of different industries across hundreds of thousands of researchers have all shown that it is a real and dangerous problem that solutions need to be engineered to prevent.

The solution to climate change in my opinion is always going to come from major technological advancement in renewable energy, in transport/logistical systems and in carbon dump technology. Our entire world is built on fossil fuels and that is what is changing on an industrial scale. People talk about the pollutants coming from China but they also fail to mention that China has more Green Energy billionaire entrepreneurs than any country in the world. They are the world leader in cutting edge green technology and they have been allowed to bring this competitive advantage because here climate change seems to be drawn across political rather than scientific lines. Usually when there's a problem in the world, the Governments in the West and elsewhere get together, start investing/subsidising those industries and those problems are solved or negated. That didn't happen to the fullest degree with climate change because the right in the US turned this into a tax conspiracy and the left turned it into an anti-capitalism march.

https://theconversation.com/china-wants-to-dominate-the-worlds-green-energy-markets-heres-why-89708



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02464-5



It's important to look at the Chinese strategy because I believe it is the correct one. We see many an activist talking about how we need to lower net energy demand in the West by making changes to our lives that facilitate this. The Chinese have gone the other way - they have publicly stated that they have no intention of using less energy and instead have dumped about 1% of their GDP into the investment in renewable energy technology which last I looked was the highest in the world of any major economy. Their solution is technological, in order to keep bringing the economic growth that energy usage brings. No veganism, no widespread legislative changes, just invest in a growing industry that has a bleeding edge of technology and subsidise them appropriately. It's ironic that to some degree, the Chinese are much more free market capitalists around climate change solutions than the West who have previously attempted top down solutions.

Climate change becoming an issue drawn across the left-right divide is one of the sadder issues in modern times and I believe comes from the influence of the neo-conservatives in the US and how the US culturally dominates the world. Their issues become our issues. In the UK, the Conservative Party have acknowledged and accepted climate science for decades and all of the Tory PMs over the past 30 years have attempted to invest in the sector.

It's worth noting that Margaret Thatcher had a degree in Analytical Chemistry. She worked in a lab. She understood science, scientific results and consensus. She was also the first world leader to speak out about the dangers of climate change in 1988





The point I'm trying to make here is that although in popular culture the science of climate change may well be politicised, and various lobbyist groups have attempted to use that in order to get their other goals, it doesn't mean that it should be labelled a conspiracy or a tax con or not really a problem. No matter if you're left or right, socialist or capitalist, monarchist or republican, Blue or Red, none of this matters. What matters is the science and everybody from all sides of the debate who can read and understand the science accepts the conclusions that we all hear about. We may sit and argue whether the Chinese policy of technological advance without lifestyle changes is the right one or whether it's the wrong one, that's fine, we've all got opinions on how to solve a problem. But to ignore or dismiss the problem because you don't agree with the intended solution that is set out or the agenda of the group that is pushing it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Always remember you being the best poster on here around this topic. Good to see you back on it!
 
We are really pissing in the wind with electric vehicles.
Whilst we all know how bad fossil fuel devouring cars are isn’t it about time the government and motor industry came clean about electric powered cars?

These vehicles are not clean and are potentially bloody dangerous if you happen to have a crash in one
 
www.bbc.co.uk

US lab stands on threshold of key nuclear fusion goal

A US science institute is on the verge of achieving a longstanding goal in nuclear fusion research.
www.bbc.co.uk

Fusion hopefully 1 step closer, slowly getting there.

saw a video the other day though that said tritium that is currently used is very very rare, as in at most maybe 24kg worth on the entire planet.

However Helium 3 could be used instead which while still quite rare on earth is massively abundant... on the moon. Moon base and mining ahoy.
 
inbetween said:
The crazy thing about it is we see XR and all the others marching day by day but they have the wrong answers to the wrong questions. They want us to do something now about changes to global temperature and let's say we did, great. What do we do though whilst we are still converting land to farms, fields to houses etc? The worlds population will hit 10 billion over the next 20 years, where are these people going to live and what are they going to eat?

There's a reason all of this is happening and it purely comes down to the fact that humans exist. We can't do anything about that and it's not exactly a mainstream argument to limit the number of children that people can have or to halt any growth in consumption by banning consumption.

Boris is going on about moving us towards electric cars for example but that just moves the goalposts to another form of consumer consumption which has different implications for the environment compared to petrol cars. Electric cars still necessitate roads, they still require factories and they still therefore contribute to the problem no differently. Increase the population by 10% in 15 years and the impact is absolutely the same as petrol cars.

Eventually in 100 years time this question won't be about banning cars, instead it will be about whether we should ban people from eating today because we don't have enough food... That sounds insane but that's where we are headed. The climate emergency thing is a bit of a joke compared to the real emergency that's happening and we don't even know about it.
Click to expand...
Obesity problem solved. Let them eat cake.
 
KS55 said:
I read an article recently that suggested that the Gulf Stream was failing and that northern climes would turn arctic.
Good luck.
Click to expand...

Yep, If the Atlantic currents stop ( they are about 15-20% slower than they used to be ) then we're looking at about 10-15'c temperature drop in the UK + Northern Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.