Protesters

Wouldn't reducing the insane amount of Cows we have in the world go a long way to helping too? Or is that just an argument Vegans use?

I drive a 1.2 litre car and live round the corner from my job, use to do the m60 commute for a year or so how any lives their life in that I don't know.

World class public transport is key to winning the pollution battle and banning fucking cruiseships!
 
Are you basing that on anything?

The majority of climate scientists think we will be ok if we act now. They’ve put a decade on it.

Having a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere is good but it’s when we get to 1.5 degrees+ increase.

Again, I’ll ask - what choice do we have but to act now and act drastically?

I openly admit mine is my own interpretation of it. Based on the fact that every year we get reports of climate change speeding up, while reports of reductions on our part failing or going to slowly.

Most predictions I’ve seen also don’t take the rapid increase in Methane going on at the moment. 20 years ago methane leveled off. But in the last couple of years it’s spiked again, since the holes in Siberia and fracking leakage has shown its face.

Yes drastic action is needed, I just think it needs to be in a slightly different direction than just prevention.

Battery tech isn’t up to moving everything to renewables, so we neee something that can produce power on queue. Hence my comment about fusion / thorium reactors ( same as uranium but far safer and thorium is eariler to get hold of as it’s everywhete ).

I’d suggest as well as reductions in greenhouse gasses we need to massively increase funding into green tech.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't reducing the insane amount of Cows we have in the world go a long way to helping too? Or is that just an argument Vegans use?

I drive a 1.2 litre car and live round the corner from my job, use to do the m60 commute for a year or so how any lives their life in that I don't know.

World class public transport is key to winning the pollution battle and banning fucking cruiseships!

Agreed a world class public transport system would help in more ways than one. But transport ( cars, planes, trains etc etc ) only contribute 15% of greenhouse gasses. So it’s not the be all and end all.

The cows thing depends what study you read.
 
I openly admit mine is my own interpretation of it. Based on the fact that every year we get reports of climate change speeding up, while reports of reductions on our part failing or going to slowly.

Most predictions I’ve seen also don’t take the rapid increase in Methane going on at the moment. 20 years ago methane leveled off. But in the last couple of years it’s spiked again, since the holes in Siberia and fracking leakage has shown its face.

Yes drastic action is needed, I just think it needs to be in a slightly different direction than just prevention.

Battery tech isn’t up to moving everything to renewables, so we neee something that can produce power on queue. Hence my comment about fusion / thorium reactors ( same as uranium but far safer and thorium is eariler to get hold of as it’s everywhete ).

I’d suggest as well as reductions in greenhouse gasses we need to massively increase funding into green tech.


It would be too late even if we commissioned 100 new nuclear power stations today.
They take at least 10 years to build.
 
Agree, kind of. I still find it laughable that some people refuse to believe in climate change, but then people give so little thought to anything other than themselves, I don't think they will be happy until the planet is properly ruined.

For me, the only possible way to stop climate change, and care for the future of all the other species on this planet, is for the human race to be wiped out.
I don't mean to pick you out in particular, and there's dozens of posts I could have chosen.

But what is this "ruined" you speak of?

I mean "ruined" in the context of our planet, is pretty emotive stuff, right? It's the sort of language which motivates thousands of vegans who know absolutely fuck all about climate science, to camp out in London, causing havoc. Passionately, and emotionally doing everything they can to stop a "catastrophe" about which they have no clue. They watch David Attenborough on TV - who also knows bugger all about it - and conclude we must do something to prevent this catastrophe.

The most pessimistic models show that if we fail to act, then by 2200, 181 years from now, the planet could reach temperatures as high as 7c higher than before the industrial revolution (around 1800), at which time temperatures would stabliise and start to decline. Well these are incredibly high numbers compared to the 2c target agreed upon by world leaders in 2009. But even so, "ruined"? I think we could still grow crops in cheshire if the highest summer temperatures hit the mid 30's, in the year 2200.

And remember the earth's climate is always changing, and in fact has often been hotter than it is now. 55 millon years ago (the "PETM" period), the Earth's temperature rose incredibly quickly, with sea temperatures in the Artic reaching 10c - about 12c higher than they are now. Models show that to achieve the runaway catastrophic effects turning earth into something like Venus, and genuinely "ruining" the planet, we'd have to burn more 10x more than all existing fossil fuels and exhaust them completely.

So the planet isn't going to be "ruined" whatever we do. It's going to be "different", to a lesser of greater degree. Words like "catastrophe" are banded around by people with an axe to grind, seeking to shock people into action.

There is not much doubt that climate change is happening and it is man made. Actually there is *some* doubt. The "97% concensus" figure has been debunked a number of times. It's somewhere above 90% of scientists who believe this, but not necessarily 97%. But putting that to one side, people need to take the emotion out of this an read up on the data and the facts rather than take as gospel, predictions of doom from people who know no better. It doesn't help when for example the BBC has taken a policy decision to not report on any climate-change skeptical commentary or analysis. Nor that the 15 year+ cessation in global warming since 1999, which was not predicted by any models, was barely reported.

Have a read of this, if you're interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-earth-get
 
Last edited:
I openly admit mine is my own interpretation of it. Based on the fact that every year we get reports of climate change speeding up, while reports of reductions on our part failing or going to slowly.

Most predictions I’ve seen also don’t take the rapid increase in Methane going on at the moment. 20 years ago methane leveled off. But in the last couple of years it’s spiked again, since the holes in Siberia and fracking leakage has shown its face.

Yes drastic action is needed, I just think it needs to be in a slightly different direction than just prevention.

Battery tech isn’t up to moving everything to renewables, so we neee something that can produce power on queue. Hence my comment about fusion / thorium reactors ( same as uranium but far safer and thorium is eariler to get hold of as it’s everywhete ).

I’d suggest as well as reductions in greenhouse gasses we need to massively increase funding into green tech.

Well with all due respect mate, I’m going to take the word of the climate change community on it.

I do appreciate your point and the methane aspect was mentioned on Attenborough. They did say that what is releasing it is the ice melting that’s covering it. In simplistic terms, our damage is making the methane situation worse.

We’re at about a 3rd of renewable energy in the UK now, my point isn’t to competely stop all fossil fuels right now today but in 3 years be at say 60% and then in 3 more 100%.
 

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.