Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Global Heating: great crises are difficult and complex. Activi

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Global Heating: great crises are difficult and complex. Activists need to recognise that

David Attenborough, like the Queen, is immortal and infallible and therefore the closest thing we have to a living god. Unfortunately, gods have little interest in the practical business of politics (or at least, only among themselves), which is where the problem lies with Attenborough’s call for action on global heating.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Mnuchin is speaking on behalf of an administration engaged in full on denial of the problem, and one which has abandoned the only international agreement we have, limited though it might be, so he does not deserve the respect you accord his bullshit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    An early estimate of the transmissibility of the new coronavirus from Lancaster University. it is not encouraging:

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549v1
    ....We fitted a transmission model to reported case information up to 21 January to estimate key epidemiological measures, and to predict the possible course of the epidemic, as the potential impact of travel restrictions into and from Wuhan. We estimate the basic reproduction number of the infection (R_0) to be 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.6-4.0), indicating that 72-75% of transmissions must be prevented by control measures for infections to stop increasing. We estimate that only 5.1% (95%CI, 4.8-5.5) of infections in Wuhan are identified, and by 21 January a total of 11,341 people (prediction interval, 9,217-14,245) had been infected in Wuhan since the start of the year. Should the epidemic continue unabated in Wuhan, we predict the epidemic in Wuhan will be substantially larger by 4 February (191,529 infections; prediction interval, 132,751-273,649), infection will be established in other Chinese cities, and importations to other countries will be more frequent. Our model suggests that travel restrictions from and to Wuhan city are unlikely to be effective in halting transmission across China...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    The transmissibility rate of SARS was much lower (around 2, I believe), and was able to be brought down relatively easily by medical intervention, as it had a two week incubation period before patients could pass it on to others.
    It’s not clear what the incubation period might be for the new bug.
  • Keir Starmer has shortened and Lisa Nandy drifted on Betfair since yesterday. The sums are not huge.
    KS 1.4
    RLB 5.5
    LN 9.6
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Nigelb said:



    It’s not clear what the incubation period might be for the new bug.

    So, we are lacking very basic data .... but someone has fitted a model.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Good piece as usual David.
    World leaders are never going to agree things that make themselves uncompetitive or reduce size of their own economy, what they should be doing though is incentivising invention and early adoption of new technology - which is something that the UK in particular has been very good at in the past few years.

    Given the massive increases in life expectancy and decreases in infant mortality over the past few decades, it would also make sense to invest in education of women, especially in developing countries, making them aware that two or three children are enough, there is no need for them to have seven or eight in order to safeguard their own retirement.

    I think people also switch off to alarmist rhetoric, especially when those going on about a 'crisis' or 'emergency' seem remarkably unwilling to change their own middle-class lifestyles in response. I'll believe there's a crisis when a climate change conference is done over a video link, rather than as part of a week-long jolly involving private planes and five star reports on expenses.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Excellent piece.

    My view is that it's a 100-150 year global programme to decarbonise, and we'll have to mitigate, adapt and take it on the chin in the meantime. Because stopping all emissions tomorrow is a pipe dream: it can't and won't happen.

    Broadly, Europe decarbonise by 2050-2060, and then other Western nations about 10-15 years later. China/India and the other emerging global powers by about 2100.

    We're then at broad neutrality in about 80 years. The first half of the 22nd century is then about pulling out or sinking back whatever carbon we can, accepting some permanent damage might have already been done by then, and stabilising the global climate. Unfortunately I expect by then we'll have warmed by 2.5-3C, which is pretty significant I'm afraid.

    However, the human race will definitely do more than survive (it would ultimately thrive) and i think that's realistic, credible and achievable without mass social unrest but it will require the big nations to engage and play ball.

    Technology, not ideology, will be key.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Nigelb said:

    The transmissibility rate of SARS was much lower (around 2, I believe), and was able to be brought down relatively easily by medical intervention, as it had a two week incubation period before patients could pass it on to others.
    It’s not clear what the incubation period might be for the new bug.

    I'm quite surprised that, given the lack of information and knowledge around this new bug, flights from China are still being allowed to land anywhere.

    (Speaking as someone currently living in one of the most likely places for an epidemic to break out, given it's a small place with millions of travellers going through).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    The transmissibility rate of SARS was much lower (around 2, I believe), and was able to be brought down relatively easily by medical intervention, as it had a two week incubation period before patients could pass it on to others.
    It’s not clear what the incubation period might be for the new bug.

    I'm quite surprised that, given the lack of information and knowledge around this new bug, flights from China are still being allowed to land anywhere.

    (Speaking as someone currently living in one of the most likely places for an epidemic to break out, given it's a small place with millions of travellers going through).
    The UK will unfortunately be one of the first nations to receive it as we are a global hub and very interconnected for business and trade.

    The good news is that being an open democracy we don't suppress truth or information and I think our health and disaster contingency planning at national level is very good. So we'll be good at quarantining and containing it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    If you're going to write 15 paragraphs complaining about something David Attenborough has apparently said could you at least link to what he actually said?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Sandpit said:

    Good piece as usual David.
    World leaders are never going to agree things that make themselves uncompetitive or reduce size of their own economy, what they should be doing though is incentivising invention and early adoption of new technology - which is something that the UK in particular has been very good at in the past few years.

    Except, the UK could have started development on utilising the vast energy of the tides two years ago. But Theresa May, led by the nose by civil servants, said no....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited January 2020
    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited January 2020
    The inconvenient truth is that carbon emissions will continue to rise.

    Emissions from developing countries will rise rapidly because so many sources of emissions (travel, electric power, infrastructure that requires carbon emission to build) are the very things people buy more & more of as they become more & more prosperous.

    David makes this point very clearly: "China is committed to massive increases in carbon emissions". Where China goes, other developing countries follow.

    People won't freeze in the dark for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct one. People won't stop taking planes for the sake of a scientific theory, even a correct one.

    And certainly, people won't freeze in the dark and stop taking planes just because they are lectured to by someone who lives in a warm house and has caused himself and accompanying television crews & equipment to globe-trot the world on planes making good (but hardly very vital) TV programs.

    Global warming is real and much of it is anthropogenic. Nothing serious whatsoever will be done about it.

    Far more likely, we will have to adapt to a warmer Earth. It is better to take steps now to think what that might entail.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Seeing you as you've politicised it: that's bollocks.

    This Conservative Government has grasped it and will solve the UK by 2050, bringing our carbon down to zero. It was also a landslide Conservative parliament that led rearmament in the late 1930s, and provided the PM and most of the cabinet during WWII.

    Away with you. Go back and play with your little red bag.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Excellent piece.

    My view is that it's a 100-150 year global programme to decarbonise, and we'll have to mitigate, adapt and take it on the chin in the meantime. Because stopping all emissions tomorrow is a pipe dream: it can't and won't happen.

    Broadly, Europe decarbonise by 2050-2060, and then other Western nations about 10-15 years later. China/India and the other emerging global powers by about 2100.

    We're then at broad neutrality in about 80 years. The first half of the 22nd century is then about pulling out or sinking back whatever carbon we can, accepting some permanent damage might have already been done by then, and stabilising the global climate. Unfortunately I expect by then we'll have warmed by 2.5-3C, which is pretty significant I'm afraid.

    However, the human race will definitely do more than survive (it would ultimately thrive) and i think that's realistic, credible and achievable without mass social unrest but it will require the big nations to engage and play ball.

    Technology, not ideology, will be key.

    On that timescale the damage will be done. In temperate zones we will need to accommodate a lot of environmental refugees.

    Complacency on this is not an adequate response.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    Good piece as usual David.
    World leaders are never going to agree things that make themselves uncompetitive or reduce size of their own economy, what they should be doing though is incentivising invention and early adoption of new technology - which is something that the UK in particular has been very good at in the past few years.

    Except, the UK could have started development on utilising the vast energy of the tides two years ago. But Theresa May, led by the nose by civil servants, said no....
    Indeed, we could have done better, but we have and continue to do considerably better than most others in the developed world.

    Germany is closing nuclear and building gas power stations, and importing most of that gas from Russia.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    I don’t think the topography of Skye lends itself very well to having the world’s population standing about.

    The more interesting question is whether the climate issue will be a key driver and shaper of the political climate over coming decades.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited January 2020

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Seeing you as you've politicised it: that's bollocks.

    This Conservative Government has grasped it and will solve the UK by 2050, bringing our carbon down to zero. It was also a landslide Conservative parliament that led rearmament in the late 1930s, and provided the PM and most of the cabinet during WWII.

    Away with you. Go back and play with your little red bag.
    Someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Forgive me for not being blown away by the action of this government or impressed by the rhetoric that comes from the conservative establishment on both sides of the pond. David challenges activists, they are not alone in needing to be challenged.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Two predictions.

    1. Flight shaming will become a popular pastime for the middle-classes.

    2. The obtuse will use it as a convenient political cosh for their opponents.

    (E.g., Labour in Wales want the flight tax to be devolved so they can cut it, so Labour seem to have much the same struggles that the Conservatives have).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Foxy said:

    Excellent piece.

    My view is that it's a 100-150 year global programme to decarbonise, and we'll have to mitigate, adapt and take it on the chin in the meantime. Because stopping all emissions tomorrow is a pipe dream: it can't and won't happen.

    Broadly, Europe decarbonise by 2050-2060, and then other Western nations about 10-15 years later. China/India and the other emerging global powers by about 2100.

    We're then at broad neutrality in about 80 years. The first half of the 22nd century is then about pulling out or sinking back whatever carbon we can, accepting some permanent damage might have already been done by then, and stabilising the global climate. Unfortunately I expect by then we'll have warmed by 2.5-3C, which is pretty significant I'm afraid.

    However, the human race will definitely do more than survive (it would ultimately thrive) and i think that's realistic, credible and achievable without mass social unrest but it will require the big nations to engage and play ball.

    Technology, not ideology, will be key.

    On that timescale the damage will be done. In temperate zones we will need to accommodate a lot of environmental refugees.

    Complacency on this is not an adequate response.

    Nothing of what I've written in that post is complacent. I'm aware of the challenge but it will require a lot of action and wholesale changes to economies and societies.

    So that timeline is best my estimate of what's credible and realistic.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Under capitalism we're just going to rage on until we've burn every scrap of fossil fuel that is accessible in the Earth's crust - if we last that long. That much is obvious as the accretion of wealth to the capital owning class is the prime directive that dominates all other considerations.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2020

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Two predictions.

    1. Flight shaming will become a popular pastime for the middle-classes.

    2. The obtuse will use it as a convenient political cosh for their opponents.

    (E.g., Labour in Wales want the flight tax to be devolved so they can cut it, so Labour seem to have much the same struggles that the Conservatives have).
    Flight tax needs to be massively reformed. Right now a plane full of passengers pays twice as much tax as the same plane, to the same destination that flies half empty.

    If there's going to be a flight tax, it should be based on the efficiency of the plane type and the flight length, not the number of passengers. This would incentivise operators to invest in newer, more efficient aircraft, and to make sure they fly full.

    Also, build that bloody runway at LHR, and do it yesterday. There's millions of tonnes of carbon emitted from all the planes flying around in circles at low level waiting for a slot to land .
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    Am I alone in being sick to death about hearing about climate change? When I hear it on the radio or TV , I just switch off or retune.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sandpit said:



    Flight tax needs to be massively reformed. Right now a plane full of passengers pays twice as much tax as the same plane, to the same destination that flies half empty.

    If there's going to be a flight tax, it should be based on the efficiency of the plane type and the flight length, not the number of passengers.

    It is certainly ridiculous that aviation fuel is tax exempt.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Not Conservatism. Politicians. Look at Labour. Huge majority, supine backbenchers, growing economy, yet the future proofing in terms of power generation or infrastructure? Pretty much zero. HS2 would be running by now having cost less than half what it will probably cost if Brown had backed it in 2004. We could have massive expansion of nuclear, or tidal - instead our coal power stations had their lives prolonged past reason because Blair would never upset anyone on domestic issues (which, bizarrely, did not apply to foreign affairs).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2020

    Sandpit said:



    Flight tax needs to be massively reformed. Right now a plane full of passengers pays twice as much tax as the same plane, to the same destination that flies half empty.

    If there's going to be a flight tax, it should be based on the efficiency of the plane type and the flight length, not the number of passengers.

    It is certainly ridiculous that aviation fuel is tax exempt.
    In theory, yes. In practice, no - at least got without global co-operation.

    What would happen is airlines 'tankering' fuel, that is buying too much where it's cheaper, and as little as possible where it's more expensive. Airlines do this to some extent already, and have teams of accountants and algorithms working out the cost of flying a heavier aircraft against the price of fuel at various airports.

    Imagine, for example, Emirates filling their A380 to the brim in Dubai, and flying it from there to London and back without refuelling in London.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287

    Sandpit said:



    Flight tax needs to be massively reformed. Right now a plane full of passengers pays twice as much tax as the same plane, to the same destination that flies half empty.

    If there's going to be a flight tax, it should be based on the efficiency of the plane type and the flight length, not the number of passengers.

    It is certainly ridiculous that aviation fuel is tax exempt.
    No it isn't. We have to pay tax on every flight, forget what the tax is called , but its the same thing , just called something different.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    Am I alone in being sick to death about hearing about climate change? When I hear it on the radio or TV , I just switch off or retune.

    Unbelievable. We are talking about the destruction of the planet. Even if you are a denier you can't avoid the fact that a significant number do believe based upon significant evidence and you think we talk about it too much. What else has a higher priority globally?

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Under capitalism we're just going to rage on until we've burn every scrap of fossil fuel that is accessible in the Earth's crust - if we last that long. That much is obvious as the accretion of wealth to the capital owning class is the prime directive that dominates all other considerations.
    What do those glorified VW cars of yours run on?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Under capitalism we're just going to rage on until we've burn every scrap of fossil fuel that is accessible in the Earth's crust - if we last that long. That much is obvious as the accretion of wealth to the capital owning class is the prime directive that dominates all other considerations.
    What do those glorified VW cars of yours run on?
    Distilled Yorkshire terriers?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Under capitalism we're just going to rage on until we've burn every scrap of fossil fuel that is accessible in the Earth's crust - if we last that long. That much is obvious as the accretion of wealth to the capital owning class is the prime directive that dominates all other considerations.
    Well, that's demonstrably untrue since we still have over 200 years coal in the ground (but have closed our last coal power stations) and have just stopped fracking gas too.

    Try again.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Seeing you as you've politicised it: that's bollocks.

    This Conservative Government has grasped it and will solve the UK by 2050, bringing our carbon down to zero. It was also a landslide Conservative parliament that led rearmament in the late 1930s, and provided the PM and most of the cabinet during WWII.

    Away with you. Go back and play with your little red bag.
    Someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Forgive me for not being blown away by the action of this government or impressed by the rhetoric that comes from the conservative establishment on both sides of the pond. David challenges activists, they are not alone in needing to be challenged.
    If you want a sensible conversation try not to start the day with a narrow-minded partisan attack that you know will provoke.

    Better for all of us, and beneath you.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.
    They can actually, because it depends on when you’re asking about. China is a significant player in renewable energy and up until about two years ago was gradually starting to replace its coal plants.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/

    However, two years ago (actually after that article had been written) it did an about turn and started building new plants and reopening old ones.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity

    So bear in mind things are not static.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited January 2020
    kjh said:

    Am I alone in being sick to death about hearing about climate change? When I hear it on the radio or TV , I just switch off or retune.

    Unbelievable. We are talking about the destruction of the planet. Even if you are a denier you can't avoid the fact that a significant number do believe based upon significant evidence and you think we talk about it too much. What else has a higher priority globally?

    Au contraire, highly believable. Lots of things have the power to destroy civilised life as we know it; asteroid strike, a new deadly and unstoppable infection, the current nuclear arsenal (this was number one topic within quite recent times), mass crop failure, a new ice age, a major and unpredicted change in solar activity. Maybe there are others.

    Discussion can be interesting. (I paid close attention to David Herdson's article today.) It can also be futile, boring, repetitive, contradictory. It can fail to advance arguments, solutions or deal with the realities of power. Just because an issue might destroy us all is not a reason for paying attention to every axe grinder.

    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    For myself I believe, FWIW, that if the doomsters are right then we are in fact doomed. The best chance of the doomsters being wrong is:

    (1) that they are in fact wrong
    or
    (2) that predict, provide, develop new technologies, adapt will work.

    What I think will not be the case is that by natural means we will become carbon neutral.

  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Good god, you are nothing if not predictable. Whatever the question, the answer is always “Conservatism is at fault”.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    We’re at stage three of the four stage strategy on climate change:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    If you know China, you will understand that policy happens by diktat. Xi Jinping gave a speech last year saying China would close coal fire power stations. Provincial authorities rushed to be first, to the extent people were shivering in unheated houses. They rolled back on that. Some stats here: https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2019-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/. Note solar inputs into the energy mix increasing 26% yoy. Lots of new nuclear energy too. In five years this mix will look very different.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    IshmaelZ said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Under capitalism we're just going to rage on until we've burn every scrap of fossil fuel that is accessible in the Earth's crust - if we last that long. That much is obvious as the accretion of wealth to the capital owning class is the prime directive that dominates all other considerations.
    What do those glorified VW cars of yours run on?
    I think he got a "B minus" from his Marxist tutor for that essay.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    algarkirk said:

    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    It’s still there, but it’s less imminent. In the 1960s and 1980s there was a real chance some twat would blow up the world to show he could (there was such a fear Nixon would start WWIII over Watergate that James Schlesinger issued secret orders to the military that they should ignore any orders from the White House to launch nuclear weapons). Now, that seems unlikely as the Superpowers aren’t interested in blowing each other up, so in James Murdoch’s horrible phrase, ‘it isn’t top of mind.’

    The risk of accident is however probably higher than ever, given the age and state of many nuclear facilities military and non-military around the world.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.
    They can actually, because it depends on when you’re asking about. China is a significant player in renewable energy and up until about two years ago was gradually starting to replace its coal plants.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/

    However, two years ago (actually after that article had been written) it did an about turn and started building new plants and reopening old ones.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity

    So bear in mind things are not static.
    I would add to this that for the Chinese government, truth is not just malleable but entirely subordinated to the continued preeminence of the Communist Party (male) gerontracy. Anyone who believes that government statistics are accurate and truthful is fooling themselves.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    If you know China, you will understand that policy happens by diktat. Xi Jinping gave a speech last year saying China would close coal fire power stations. Provincial authorities rushed to be first, to the extent people were shivering in unheated houses. They rolled back on that. Some stats here: https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2019-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/. Note solar inputs into the energy mix increasing 26% yoy. Lots of new nuclear energy too. In five years this mix will look very different.
    Thanks. I have received two answers to my comment. Both saying significantly different things.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Root, you're not alone in that.

    The sermonising is tiresome.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited January 2020
    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    I think they can both be true? Development in China is absolutely bananas, so "at a pace" applies to basically everything. And although it's an authoritarian dictatorship, it has quite a few difference centres of power (where's Anatole when you need him? I haven't seen him post here lately but he's really interesting to talk to on this stuff) so there isn't necessarily one consistent top-down policy.

    They're opening lots of new power stations. They're also closing lots of old ones, IIUC partly over CO2 emissions but more importantly for air quality. Not sure what the net effect is.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
    Good point. Is the reality that we only talk passionately much about one earth destroying issue at a time? if so it is quite rational for any individual to ignore the hype and pay attention to the neglected ones.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Root, you're not alone in that.

    The sermonising is tiresome.

    I get that. It pales into insignificance with the tiresomeness of permanently disfiguring our only home.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
    Well, that would certainly reduce carbon emissions at a stroke. If China and the US took each other out then they'd halve overnight.

    Pretty radical policy though.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited January 2020

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    I think they can both be true? Development in China is absolutely bananas, so "at a pace" applies to basically everything. And although it's an authoritarian dictatorship, it has quite a few difference centres of power (where's Anatole when you need him? I haven't seen him post here lately but he's really interesting to talk to on this stuff) so there isn't necessarily one consistent top-down policy.

    They're opening lots of new power stations. They're also closing lots of old ones, IIUC partly over CO2 emissions but more importantly for air quality. Not sure what the net effect is.
    Facts matter. They could, just, both be true if you qualify it. But only one overall carbon outcome can be true.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    If you know China, you will understand that policy happens by diktat. Xi Jinping gave a speech last year saying China would close coal fire power stations. Provincial authorities rushed to be first, to the extent people were shivering in unheated houses. They rolled back on that. Some stats here: https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2019-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/. Note solar inputs into the energy mix increasing 26% yoy. Lots of new nuclear energy too. In five years this mix will look very different.
    When China decides to change tact they will do it very quickly because Not A Democracy.

    But, what they absolutely won't do is anything that stops eternal economic growth because the regime believes that's the only real thing that keeps them in office.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343

    We’re at stage three of the four stage strategy on climate change:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak

    Sounds about right.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Am I alone in being sick to death about hearing about climate change? When I hear it on the radio or TV , I just switch off or retune.

    Unbelievable. We are talking about the destruction of the planet. Even if you are a denier you can't avoid the fact that a significant number do believe based upon significant evidence and you think we talk about it too much. What else has a higher priority globally?

    Au contraire, highly believable. Lots of things have the power to destroy civilised life as we know it; asteroid strike, a new deadly and unstoppable infection, the current nuclear arsenal (this was number one topic within quite recent times), mass crop failure, a new ice age, a major and unpredicted change in solar activity. Maybe there are others.

    Discussion can be interesting. (I paid close attention to David Herdson's article today.) It can also be futile, boring, repetitive, contradictory. It can fail to advance arguments, solutions or deal with the realities of power. Just because an issue might destroy us all is not a reason for paying attention to every axe grinder.

    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    For myself I believe, FWIW, that if the doomsters are right then we are in fact doomed. The best chance of the doomsters being wrong is:

    (1) that they are in fact wrong
    or
    (2) that predict, provide, develop new technologies, adapt will work.

    What I think will not be the case is that by natural means we will become carbon neutral.

    I agree with most of that particularly as I was a youngster/young adult in the 60s/70s and the big fear was nuclear war and of course we were going to run out of oil (one you missed and even more weird as you look back). I also sadly believe you are probably right in your last statement.

    However I never said you had to listen to every axe grinder. That is somewhat different to going 'La, la, la. Can't hear what you are saying, going to ignore it all'. I think you are putting me at the other extreme of the post I was responding to. I am not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
    Well, that would certainly reduce carbon emissions at a stroke. If China and the US took each other out then they'd halve overnight.

    Pretty radical policy though.
    Yeah, but the heat of the nuclear blasts would do far more to warm up the planet than a few coal fired power stations!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Meeks, does it?

    The desire to 'be green' has led to deforestation of pristine rainforest in Indonesia so that palm oil plantations could be created to serve the desire amongst guilt-ridden Westerners for biofuel.

    Many of the measures, probably most, proposed by warming enthusiasts make sense even without the doom-mongering (more energy efficient devices, expansion of solar and geothermal energy, etc). But the zealotry and desire for imposition of far left policies (meat taxes and bans, taxing flight to dissuade the peasant class from flitting about, rushing to try and stop all carbon dioxide-emitting power plants when a phased shift to gas then nuclear makes far more sense, and so on) leave me more than unimpressed.

    I'm not convinced by the blind belief. When there was a plateau in temperatures for a decade-ish from 2000, who of the warming enthusiasts changed their mind? When it rains, it's global warming. When it snows, it's global warming. When the temperature rises, it's global warming. When it doesn't, it's global warming.

    The climate has always changed and will always change. I'm not persuaded we're driving the current change, and don't subscribe to the religion. They can look for prayers and tithes elsewhere.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    algarkirk said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
    Good point. Is the reality that we only talk passionately much about one earth destroying issue at a time? if so it is quite rational for any individual to ignore the hype and pay attention to the neglected ones.

    Assuming NK and Iran already have them, in the next 20 years we'll have a host of new nuclear powers: Japan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, UAE, Saudi and probably Kazakhstan. Maybe Venezuela (the workers' bomb ☭).

    The probability of one popping off by accident or for spite must be approaching 1.0.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Meeks, does it?

    The desire to 'be green' has led to deforestation of pristine rainforest in Indonesia so that palm oil plantations could be created to serve the desire amongst guilt-ridden Westerners for biofuel.

    Many of the measures, probably most, proposed by warming enthusiasts make sense even without the doom-mongering (more energy efficient devices, expansion of solar and geothermal energy, etc). But the zealotry and desire for imposition of far left policies (meat taxes and bans, taxing flight to dissuade the peasant class from flitting about, rushing to try and stop all carbon dioxide-emitting power plants when a phased shift to gas then nuclear makes far more sense, and so on) leave me more than unimpressed.

    I'm not convinced by the blind belief. When there was a plateau in temperatures for a decade-ish from 2000, who of the warming enthusiasts changed their mind? When it rains, it's global warming. When it snows, it's global warming. When the temperature rises, it's global warming. When it doesn't, it's global warming.

    The climate has always changed and will always change. I'm not persuaded we're driving the current change, and don't subscribe to the religion. They can look for prayers and tithes elsewhere.

    There’s a lot of misuse of data in this debate. My experience is that it’s the sceptics that are the worst offenders.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    matt said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    Good god, you are nothing if not predictable. Whatever the question, the answer is always “Conservatism is at fault”.
    Do you think he's heard of Lysenko?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Meeks, a 'scientific' theory that has leading proponents arguing snowfall will become a thing of the past a few years before two of the coldest winters in recent British history suggests that their predictive powers are less than stellar. And making wild prophecies about the future which prove false doesn't inspire confidence in that oracular powers.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Mr. Meeks, a 'scientific' theory that has leading proponents arguing snowfall will become a thing of the past a few years before two of the coldest winters in recent British history suggests that their predictive powers are less than stellar. And making wild prophecies about the future which prove false doesn't inspire confidence in that oracular powers.

    Now do some of your Rotherham stuff.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    algarkirk said:


    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    The only reason we haven't had a nuclear war so far is because two Soviet officers disobeyed orders (Vasili Arkhipov in '62 and Stanislav Petrov in '83). So it's going happen at some point.
    Well, that would certainly reduce carbon emissions at a stroke. If China and the US took each other out then they'd halve overnight.

    Pretty radical policy though.
    Yeah, but the heat of the nuclear blasts would do far more to warm up the planet than a few coal fired power stations!
    Nuclear winter.

    What would have solved all our problems (or more of them than anything else) would be going wholeheartedly to nuclear power in the 60s and 70s. The Gretas said no.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Ace, you're making light of the rape of thousands of children, and inaction by the authorities that allowed it to continue.

    I hope that none of your own children, or those of your friends and family, ever suffer that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    I think they can both be true? Development in China is absolutely bananas, so "at a pace" applies to basically everything. And although it's an authoritarian dictatorship, it has quite a few difference centres of power (where's Anatole when you need him? I haven't seen him post here lately but he's really interesting to talk to on this stuff) so there isn't necessarily one consistent top-down policy.

    They're opening lots of new power stations. They're also closing lots of old ones, IIUC partly over CO2 emissions but more importantly for air quality. Not sure what the net effect is.
    Facts matter. They could, just, both be true if you qualify it. But only one overall carbon outcome can be true.
    This seems a pretty sterile argument when it’s very easy just to look the figures up.
    Here’s some detail:
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019

    In a sense, you are both right, as Chinese policy is a mix of a dash for growth irrespective of carbon targets, coupled with very strong incentives for renewables - for instance:
    The first batch of 250 subsidy-free grid-parity wind and solar projects, with a total capacity of nearly 21 gigawatts (GW) in 16 provinces, got approved in May this year. These projects will be given priority access to the grid and long-term (at least 20 years) contracts at the benchmark price of coal-fired power...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Am I alone in being sick to death about hearing about climate change? When I hear it on the radio or TV , I just switch off or retune.

    Unbelievable. We are talking about the destruction of the planet. Even if you are a denier you can't avoid the fact that a significant number do believe based upon significant evidence and you think we talk about it too much. What else has a higher priority globally?

    Au contraire, highly believable. Lots of things have the power to destroy civilised life as we know it; asteroid strike, a new deadly and unstoppable infection, the current nuclear arsenal (this was number one topic within quite recent times), mass crop failure, a new ice age, a major and unpredicted change in solar activity. Maybe there are others.

    Discussion can be interesting. (I paid close attention to David Herdson's article today.) It can also be futile, boring, repetitive, contradictory. It can fail to advance arguments, solutions or deal with the realities of power. Just because an issue might destroy us all is not a reason for paying attention to every axe grinder.

    By the way, whatever happened to the nuclear issue as number one threat which was going to destroy us all? Is it lurking in the same 1970s storage dump as global cooling?

    For myself I believe, FWIW, that if the doomsters are right then we are in fact doomed. The best chance of the doomsters being wrong is:

    (1) that they are in fact wrong
    or
    (2) that predict, provide, develop new technologies, adapt will work.

    What I think will not be the case is that by natural means we will become carbon neutral.

    I agree with most of that particularly as I was a youngster/young adult in the 60s/70s and the big fear was nuclear war and of course we were going to run out of oil (one you missed and even more weird as you look back). I also sadly believe you are probably right in your last statement.

    However I never said you had to listen to every axe grinder. That is somewhat different to going 'La, la, la. Can't hear what you are saying, going to ignore it all'. I think you are putting me at the other extreme of the post I was responding to. I am not.
    Fully agree.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Mr. Meeks, does it?

    The desire to 'be green' has led to deforestation of pristine rainforest in Indonesia so that palm oil plantations could be created to serve the desire amongst guilt-ridden Westerners for biofuel.

    Many of the measures, probably most, proposed by warming enthusiasts make sense even without the doom-mongering (more energy efficient devices, expansion of solar and geothermal energy, etc). But the zealotry and desire for imposition of far left policies (meat taxes and bans, taxing flight to dissuade the peasant class from flitting about, rushing to try and stop all carbon dioxide-emitting power plants when a phased shift to gas then nuclear makes far more sense, and so on) leave me more than unimpressed.

    I'm not convinced by the blind belief. When there was a plateau in temperatures for a decade-ish from 2000, who of the warming enthusiasts changed their mind? When it rains, it's global warming. When it snows, it's global warming. When the temperature rises, it's global warming. When it doesn't, it's global warming.

    The climate has always changed and will always change. I'm not persuaded we're driving the current change, and don't subscribe to the religion. They can look for prayers and tithes elsewhere.

    1. It is unlikely that the 150 years of warming prior to the mid-19th Century were anthropogenic because emissions of man-made greenhouse gases were slight, and samples of air trapped in ice show that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide did not rise significantly until the later 19th Century.

    2. There is a very sharp increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beginning around 1800 and increasing to 2000 (measured from trapped ice cores till 1977, then directly from atmospheric data). You would have to be a very dull person indeed not to look at the graph of carbon dioxide concentration versus time and think "Wow. Something really, really significant happened around 1800".

    So, you are partly correct that there are other mechanisms warming the planet.
    But, that is NOT enough to explain the data. You also have to find something that happened around 1800 that changed the behaviour of the graph THEN. What could it be?

    Clue for the Historically Challenged: James Watt patented the steam engine in 1769.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.

    I think they can both be true? Development in China is absolutely bananas, so "at a pace" applies to basically everything. And although it's an authoritarian dictatorship, it has quite a few difference centres of power (where's Anatole when you need him? I haven't seen him post here lately but he's really interesting to talk to on this stuff) so there isn't necessarily one consistent top-down policy.

    They're opening lots of new power stations. They're also closing lots of old ones, IIUC partly over CO2 emissions but more importantly for air quality. Not sure what the net effect is.
    Facts matter. They could, just, both be true if you qualify it. But only one overall carbon outcome can be true.
    This seems a pretty sterile argument when it’s very easy just to look the figures up.
    Here’s some detail:
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019

    In a sense, you are both right, as Chinese policy is a mix of a dash for growth irrespective of carbon targets, coupled with very strong incentives for renewables - for instance:
    The first batch of 250 subsidy-free grid-parity wind and solar projects, with a total capacity of nearly 21 gigawatts (GW) in 16 provinces, got approved in May this year. These projects will be given priority access to the grid and long-term (at least 20 years) contracts at the benchmark price of coal-fired power...
    Thanks. I think the article has a degree of 'it depends on future decisions' about it.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.

    How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    China did get a bit of a shock when the Beijing Smog threatened to call a halt to the Grand Prix a couple of years ago, as the medical helicopter was unable to land at the local hospital. The whole of Friday practice was cancelled.

    The typical Chinese solution - they moved an entire neurological intensive care unit from the Beijing hospital to a local clinic close to the track, overnight and to the satisfaction of the F1 medical team.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    An excellent article. I also think Casino's analysis looks pretty credible, but sadly I am not as positive as Casino as to the state of the human race at that end point.

    I have changed my views over time. In the past one of the solutions was the removal of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. I thought that was a barking idea. It is looking more and more likely that will be a necessary technology.

    I also thought the population issue was going to sort itself out with reductions in birth rate in the 3rd world as poverty was reduced (I think Sandpit made this point yesterday) and that the 1st world countries would go into negative growth by the birth rate dropping to under 2. It seems whenever this happens in 1st world countries they take the easy way out of the economic consequences by encouraging birth rate with financial incentives.

    Population of course is not just an issue of climate change, but food, water, biodiversity, etc.

    Yesterday I made a flippant comment really along the lines of 'I wouldn't start here' re population numbers. I enjoyed the funny responses eg 'Hi Adolf', 'Volunteers'. Although one person seemed to take this somewhat more seriously. As hopefully I made clear all I propose is making progress on eliminating poverty, removing financial incentives to reproduce and think more creatively re how to handle the change in the balance of demographics and economic growth. I noticed Nigelb responded to a post accordingly. Thank you.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    edited January 2020
    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    But that's just running around, wailing "but will nobody think of the children".

    If you demand action, then be specific about the policies you want. If you're talking about net-zero by 2030, then you need to be looking at things like:
    - Banning new sales of petrol / diesel vehicles within 5 years;
    - fuel costs being taxed up to £3/ltr+ quickly;
    - A 100% tax on air travel tickets;
    - A 100% tax on electricity generated from fossil fuels.

    Certainly, there would need to be an awful lot of carrot as well as stick but let's not pretend the 'action' you're demanding is the reintroduction of Home Information Packs. And let's not pretend that there wouldn't be a political backlash to those kind of policies.

    (And while we're at it, Labour stood in the 1935 election on a manifesto of disarmament and putting the abolition of the RAF on the negotiating table)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    FF43 said:

    Although China is a carbon emitter bad boy, in essence because it has adopted First World levels of consumption, it is also the most serious country when it comes to reducing those emissions. It is closing coal fired power stations and factories at a pace, investing massively in renewable energy. It is also putting the most effort into electrification of vehicles.

    Facts matter. The article tells us that China is opening coal fired power stations at a rate which would exceed and counteract any European closures. The comment here tells us that China is closing and reducing those same coal power station emissions emissions. These can't both be true. No wonder we are puzzled.

    The ordinary non-activist public will not believe in their hearts stuff which they do not see leaders and elites taking, in a costly and sacrificial manner, into their own lives and actions first.
    They can actually, because it depends on when you’re asking about. China is a significant player in renewable energy and up until about two years ago was gradually starting to replace its coal plants.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/

    However, two years ago (actually after that article had been written) it did an about turn and started building new plants and reopening old ones.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity

    So bear in mind things are not static.
    The China Energy Council stats give quite a lot of detail. The basic points seem to be:
    • China's installed power capacity is largely coal. Even now it makes up more than two thirds of the mix.
    • Demand for energy is increasing by mid single % per year
    • Energy production from coal is increasing, but less than from other sources in percentage terms. But because the coal install base is bigger, the absolute increase for coal was initially greater than from other sources
    • This is becoming less the case and in 2019 the increase in production from coal was small. Renewables are becoming an increasingly important part of the energy mix.
    • Most of the investment is going into wind power
  • novanova Posts: 525
    HYUFD said:

    nova said:

    HYUFD said:

    Soon there'll be more Labour members than voters...

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1220828616377950211

    Interesting! Can believe that people have decided to join to make a stand. Which reinforces my belief that they will find some way to bend the rules so that only the chosen ones are eligible. Why do I think that? The Labour candidate up here for Tees Valley Mayor was imposed on a shortlist of one after other candidates mysteriously ruled ineligible.

    Starmer is the least worst option for Labour. But a charisma bypass lawyer representing London isn't the person to defeat Johnson in the Blue Wall seats...
    Much of the Blue Wall is now gone for Labour anyway, maybe for a generation, Labour would win Watford, Chipping Barnet, Reading West, Chingford and Woodford Green, Hastings and Rye, Wycombe, Hendon, Milton Keynes North and Milton Keynes South, even Rushcliffe and Worthing East and Shoreham on UNS at the next election before they took Penistone and Stockbridge, Ashfield, Scunthorpe, Bishop Auckland and Great Grimsby.
    That chart from electoral calculus, showing the vote churn between parties suggests otherwise.

    For every Labour voter that went to the Tories, one went to the Lib Dems and two didn't vote this time.

    When you consider the effect of Corbyn's total unpopularity unwinding, that Blue Wall may well be a lot shakier than you suggest. Labour don't need 6% of Tories to change their vote - they mostly need the Labour voters who didn't vote Tory, didn't vote, and a small Tory swing.
    Labour to Tory switchers in the bluewall cast a positive vote for Brexit and for Boris, not just an anti Corbyn vote, they are unlikely to switch back whoever the Labour Leader is and are ideological Leavers.

    Tory Remainers in London and the South who voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 did so mainly to keep Corbyn out, they might on the other hand consider a Starmer led Labour Party or the LDs with the threat of Corbyn removed, as might Remainers who went from Labour to LD.
    Are you really suggesting that people will vote Tory for a "generation" because they are "ideological Leavers"?

    Brexit can't be an excuse forever. The "blue wall" is built on sand.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    If you're going to write 15 paragraphs complaining about something David Attenborough has apparently said could you at least link to what he actually said?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p080jx29

    Although this is titled as an interview, in reality he's treated to the indulgence of a monologue. There's no serious questioning, never mind challenge.

    If you can't play the video then this Guardian article summarises it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/17/david-attenborough-calls-australias-bushfires-the-moment-of-crisis-to-address-climate-change
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited January 2020

    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.

    How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?

    Likeliest, a natural cooling period due to cyclical sun activity - which might otherwise have seen frost fairs on the Thames again - was countered by man-made warming such that they cancelled each other out.

    We don't know the affect of man on climate. But we can make some informed theories. And on the back of those, we can take a safety-first approach; man MIGHT be changing the climate, to the general detriment of swathes of the planet. So let's take some action. If we are wrong, then we are likely making no difference to the natural course of events (save for perhaps making the next ice-age a tad colder).

    But it is up to science to take the lead. Our politicians should be granting great incentives - tax breaks, subsidies, prizes - to those implementing such scientific advances.

    (We could also all use central heating far, far less. People in pass-out "toasty" warm houses bemoaning the loss of the polar bear when they have 37 different unworn jumpers in their wardrobe may not be a small part of the problem.)
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.

    How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?

    Here is the graph

    https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

    Anyone with a functioning brain who looks at the graph would think, "Something happened around 1800"

    You have to explain not just the rise (that could be caused by other effects), but why the rise started around 1800.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited January 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    That is true. But what you are describing is not 'debate' as such - of which there is no shortage, indeed a substantial glut especially in the internet - but the political process, both in China and in the USA.

    China is an interesting case because its leaders have less to worry about in terms of reelection by the public. In that sense it is a test case of what untrammelled leaders truly believe about the science and the policies to adopt. We can assume they care very much about the survival (and prosperity) of themselves and their families. Even in the case of elites this depends on the welfare of the planet. We should watch this with interest. Their policy and practice will reveal their genuine beliefs.

    In the more democratic world there is an interesting gulf. Activism is cheap and easy. Elites do it by private jet. The folks do it by tube and bus and foot, but it is all easy. It does not require deciding and implementing the detail and reality of actual policy and sticking around to take the consequence. Nothing in our world prevents the activists, by the power of persuasion and the truth of their project, being the the politicians, the power brokers and the policy implementers, but mostly they decide not to be.

    In the west the call to address climate change has been made for years, and continues. The call to arms has become genuinely boring. The actuality of policy detail and implementation is much more valuable. The activists need to up their game.



  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458

    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.

    How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?

    Likeliest, a natural cooling period due to cyclical sun activity - which might otherwise have seen frost fairs on the Thames again - was countered by man-made warming such that they cancelled each other out.

    We don't know the affect of man on climate. But we can make some informed theories. And on the back of those, we can take a safety-first approach; man MIGHT be changing the climate, to the general detriment of swathes of the planet. So let's take some action. If we are wrong, then we are likely making no difference to the natural course of events (save for perhaps making the next ice-age a tad colder).

    But it is up to science to take the lead. Our politicians should be granting great incentives - tax breaks, subsidies, prizes - to those implementing such scientific advances.

    (We could also all use central heating far, far less. People in pass-out "toasty" warm houses bemoaning the loss of the polar bear when they have 37 different unworn jumpers in their wardrobe may not be a small part of the problem.)
    Excellent post.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    Reminds me of the rise of fascism in the 1930. Even up til 1940, people thought peace was possible. Sometimes the easy way of life isn’t on offer and you have to change, get off your backside and act.

    But that's just running around, wailing "but will nobody think of the children".

    If you demand action, then be specific about the policies you want. If you're talking about net-zero by 2030, then you need to be looking at things like:
    - Banning new sales of petrol / diesel vehicles within 5 years;
    - fuel costs being taxed up to £3/ltr+ quickly;
    - A 100% tax on air travel tickets;
    - A 100% tax on electricity generated from fossil fuels

    (And while we're at it, Labour stood in the 1935 election on a manifesto of disarmament and putting the abolition of the RAF on the negotiating table)
    kjh said:

    An excellent article. I also think Casino's analysis looks pretty credible, but sadly I am not as positive as Casino as to the state of the human race at that end point.

    I have changed my views over time. In the past one of the solutions was the removal of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. I thought that was a barking idea. It is looking more and more likely that will be a necessary technology.

    I also thought the population issue was going to sort itself out with reductions in birth rate in the 3rd world as poverty was reduced (I think Sandpit made this point yesterday) and that the 1st world countries would go into negative growth by the birth rate dropping to under 2. It seems whenever this happens in 1st world countries they take the easy way out of the economic consequences by encouraging birth rate with financial incentives.

    Population of course is not just an issue of climate change, but food, water, biodiversity, etc.

    Yesterday I made a flippant comment really along the lines of 'I wouldn't start here' re population numbers. I enjoyed the funny responses eg 'Hi Adolf', 'Volunteers'. Although one person seemed to take this somewhat more seriously. As hopefully I made clear all I propose is making progress on eliminating poverty, removing financial incentives to reproduce and think more creatively re how to handle the change in the balance of demographics and economic growth. I noticed Nigelb responded to a post accordingly. Thank you.

    I am rather more optimistic than Casino - if only because the scenario he envisages will end up being extraordinarily more costly than acting with a little more haste. And because we have the technologies to act much faster.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    And, incidentally, drowning and ice-creams should be correlated because there IS an underlying causation. More hot weather, more ice cream sales, more people taking a dip in the sea and rivers, more drownings.

    Sales of tinned soup are anti-correlated with drownings. No-one buys tinned soup in the hot weather.

    Correlations here are correctly pointing to a causation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cwsc, that indicates a sharp rise in carbon dioxide, which makes sense as it goes up as industrial activity begins.

    That doesn't explain how global warming theory tallies with temperatures plateauing, contrary to all its adherents' expectations, around 2000 for a decade or so. It doesn't explain why grand claims of snowfall becoming a thing of the past proved such false prophecies.

    When a theory predicts things and the opposite happens it doesn't reinforce confidence in that theory, if one is applying a scientific and sceptical view of it.

    (Thanks, incidentally, for actually engaging in a debate on this).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    That is true. But what you are describing is not 'debate' as such - of which there is no shortage, indeed a substantial glut especially in the internet - but the political process, both in China and in the USA.

    China is an interesting case because its leaders have less to worry about in terms of reelection by the public. In that sense it is a test case of what untrammelled leaders truly believe about the science and the policies to adopt. We can assume they care very much about the survival (and prosperity) of themselves and their families. Even in the case of elites this depends on the welfare of the planet. We should watch this with interest. Their policy and practice will reveal their genuine beliefs.

    In the more democratic world there is an interesting gulf. Activism is cheap and easy. Elites do it by private jet. The folks do it by tube and bus and foot, but it is all easy. It does not require deciding and implementing the detail and reality of actual policy and sticking around to take the consequence. Nothing in our world prevents the activists, by the power of persuasion and the truth of their project, being the the politicians, the power brokers and the policy implementers, but mostly they decide not to be.

    In the west the call to address climate change has been made for years, and continues. The call to arms has become genuinely boring. The actuality of policy detail and implementation is much more valuable. The activists need to up their game.
    The political process is a debate, and their is a genuine one taking place in both the US and China.
    David might find him insufferable, but contributions from the likes of Attenborough (and FWIW Thunberg) likely have a small net positive effect.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    I don't think I say that the debate doesn't matter? On the contrary - the debate is an important part of educating the public. People will accept some adverse changes if they see a purpose to it. But there are limits.
  • An emergency indicates an immediate threat or impending crisis demanding serious action.
    With mild warming of 1degree or so this is clearly nothing of the sort. Hardly anyone could identify this on a daily basis and as current crop reports have shown, highly beneficial to food production.
    The media have lied,manipulated and continue to whip up frenzy on the basis of weather events that have happened in the past (eg Oz fires 1974) and falsehoods (eg more extreme weather) that have been shown inaccurate(IPCC agreed no evidence of increasing severe weather).
    People have not done their homework...the likes of the Guardian etc are proven liars and the BBC truly compromised.I implore everyone to check the historical records for themselves or read independent blogs(eg.WUWT,Paul Homewood and Tony Heller) and come back here and still say they believe this extremist nonsense.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    And sometimes the activists do get to be politicians:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/MtJYmYFONq/finland_carbon_neutral_in_15_years

    2035 is probably a stretch, but it ought to enable 2040 when they overshoot. Which is what is needed here, too.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    sirclive said:

    An emergency indicates an immediate threat or impending crisis demanding serious action.
    With mild warming of 1degree or so this is clearly nothing of the sort. Hardly anyone could identify this on a daily basis and as current crop reports have shown, highly beneficial to food production.
    The media have lied,manipulated and continue to whip up frenzy on the basis of weather events that have happened in the past (eg Oz fires 1974) and falsehoods (eg more extreme weather) that have been shown inaccurate(IPCC agreed no evidence of increasing severe weather).
    People have not done their homework...the likes of the Guardian etc are proven liars and the BBC truly compromised.I implore everyone to check the historical records for themselves or read independent blogs(eg.WUWT,Paul Homewood and Tony Heller) and come back here and still say they believe this extremist nonsense.

    tell that to the Australians
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2020
    The top 3 of 57 countries ranked on tackling climate change are currently Portugal, Finland and Morocco, the worst 3 are the USA, Australia and Turkey

    https://www.statista.com/chart/20265/national-climate-change-policy-index-scores/
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    That is true. But what you are describing is not 'debate' as such - of which there is no shortage, indeed a substantial glut especially in the internet - but the political process, both in China and in the USA.

    China is an interesting case because its leaders have less to worry about in terms of reelection by the public. In that sense it is a test case of what untrammelled leaders truly believe about the science and the policies to adopt. We can assume they care very much about the survival (and prosperity) of themselves and their families. Even in the case of elites this depends on the welfare of the planet. We should watch this with interest. Their policy and practice will reveal their genuine beliefs.

    In the more democratic world there is an interesting gulf. Activism is cheap and easy. Elites do it by private jet. The folks do it by tube and bus and foot, but it is all easy. It does not require deciding and implementing the detail and reality of actual policy and sticking around to take the consequence. Nothing in our world prevents the activists, by the power of persuasion and the truth of their project, being the the politicians, the power brokers and the policy implementers, but mostly they decide not to be.

    In the west the call to address climate change has been made for years, and continues. The call to arms has become genuinely boring. The actuality of policy detail and implementation is much more valuable. The activists need to up their game.
    The political process is a debate, and their is a genuine one taking place in both the US and China.
    David might find him insufferable, but contributions from the likes of Attenborough (and FWIW Thunberg) likely have a small net positive effect.
    Perhaps. But simply saying "do something" and then walking away is an abdication of responsibility. If the moment of crisis really is 'now', then Attenborough should put some practical policy options on the table.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cwsc, the underlying factor is, as you say, how sunny a day is. Sunniness is neither drowning nor ice-cream, though. It isn't measured by the graph. And correlation doesn't indicate either direction of a cause, or if the causal factor is even included on the graph.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited January 2020

    If you're going to write 15 paragraphs complaining about something David Attenborough has apparently said could you at least link to what he actually said?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p080jx29

    Although this is titled as an interview, in reality he's treated to the indulgence of a monologue. There's no serious questioning, never mind challenge.

    If you can't play the video then this Guardian article summarises it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/17/david-attenborough-calls-australias-bushfires-the-moment-of-crisis-to-address-climate-change
    Thanks, so from the Guardian article (the BBC thing is geofenced, end the license fee), these comments seem like *excellent* politics:


    He said China needed to step forward and announce it is curbing carbon output because of climate change, and everyone else would “fall into line”.

    “That would be the big change that one could hope would happen.”

    Chinese emissions are a really big deal. Attenborough is a naturalist / TV presenter with no political power, but he's extremely popular in China. The US is the traditional world leader, but they're frustrating most of the rest of the world by failing to lead on this issue, and sabotaging everyone else's attempts to deal with it. China *wants* to be a world leader, and feels stymied by the US. Asian countries care a lot about how they're talked about in the rest of the world, and they're bound to talk about it.

    So here he's saying, "Hey China, you can take a lead on this issue, and everyone will look up to you and follow you". That's something the Chinese leadership want, and he's someone people in China respect. This is an unbelievably great way to get pressure for change out of a sentence in a BBC interview.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    HYUFD said:

    The top 3 of 57 countries ranked on tackling climate change are currently Portugal, Finland and Morocco, the worst 3 are the USA, Australia and Turkey

    https://www.statista.com/chart/20265/national-climate-change-policy-index-scores/

    6th worst is Australia.

    Karma.....?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Conservatism struggles to handle big challenges (like this) that demand action at the cost of immediate comfort.

    act.

    But that's just running around, wailing "but will nobody think of the children".

    If you demand action, then be specific about the policies you want. If you're talking about net-zero by 2030, then you need to be looking at things like:
    - Banning new sales of petrol / diesel vehicles within 5 years;
    - fuel costs being taxed up to £3/ltr+ quickly;
    - A 100% tax on air travel tickets;
    - A 100% tax on electricity generated from fossil fuels

    (And while we're at it, Labour stood in the 1935 election on a manifesto of disarmament and putting the abolition of the RAF on the negotiating table)
    kjh said:

    An excellent article. I also think Casino's analysis looks pretty credible, but sadly I am not as positive as Casino as to the state of the human race at that end point.

    I have changed my views over time. In the past one of the solutions was the removal of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. I thought that was a barking idea. It is looking more and more likely that will be a necessary technology.

    I also thought the population issue was going to sort itself out with reductions in birth rate in the 3rd world as poverty was reduced (I think Sandpit made this point yesterday) and that the 1st world countries would go into negative growth by the birth rate dropping to under 2. It seems whenever this happens in 1st world countries they take the easy way out of the economic consequences by encouraging birth rate with financial incentives.

    Population of course is not just an issue of climate change, but food, water, biodiversity, etc.

    Yesterday I made a flippant comment really along the lines of 'I wouldn't start here' re population numbers. I enjoyed the funny responses eg 'Hi Adolf', 'Volunteers'. Although one person seemed to take this somewhat more seriously. As hopefully I made clear all I propose is making progress on eliminating poverty, removing financial incentives to reproduce and think more creatively re how to handle the change in the balance of demographics and economic growth. I noticed Nigelb responded to a post accordingly. Thank you.

    I am rather more optimistic than Casino - if only because the scenario he envisages will end up being extraordinarily more costly than acting with a little more haste. And because we have the technologies to act much faster.
    Well I agree with both of your reasons as to why you should be more optimistic, but sadly I fear the politicians from around the world will trump those benefits due to short term economic reasons all around and a few extreme idiots in power.

    Glass half empty or glass half full view of the world.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited January 2020
    nova said:

    HYUFD said:

    nova said:

    HYUFD said:

    Soon there'll be more Labour members than voters...

    https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1220828616377950211

    Interesting! Can believe that people have decided to join to make a stand. Which reinforces my belief that they will find some way to bend the rules so that only the chosen ones are eligible. Why do I think that? The Labour candidate up here for Tees Valley Mayor was imposed on a shortlist of one after other candidates mysteriously ruled ineligible.

    Starmer is the least worst option for Labour. But a charisma bypass lawyer representing London isn't the person to defeat Johnson in the Blue Wall seats...
    Much of the Blue Wall is now gone for Labour anyway, maybe for a generation, Labour would win Watford, Chipping Barnet, Reading West, Chingford and Woodford Green, Hastings and Rye, Wycombe, Hendon, Milton Keynes North and Milton Keynes South, even Rushcliffe and Worthing East and Shoreham on UNS at the next election before they took Penistone and Stockbridge, Ashfield, Scunthorpe, Bishop Auckland and Great Grimsby.
    That chart from electoral calculus, showing the vote churn between parties suggests otherwise.

    For every Labour voter that went to the Tories, one went to the Lib Dems and two didn't vote this time.

    When you consider the effect of Corbyn's total unpopularity unwinding, that Blue Wall may well be a lot shakier than you suggest. Labour don't need 6% of Tories to change their vote - they mostly need the Labour voters who didn't vote Tory, didn't vote, and a small Tory swing.
    Labour to Tory switchers in the bluewall cast a positive vote for Brexit and for Boris, not just an anti Corbyn vote, they are unlikely to switch back whoever the Labour Leader is and are ideological Leavers.

    Tory Remainers in London and the South who voted Tory in 2017 and 2019 did so mainly to keep Corbyn out, they might on the other hand consider a Starmer led Labour Party or the LDs with the threat of Corbyn removed, as might Remainers who went from Labour to LD.
    Are you really suggesting that people will vote Tory for a "generation" because they are "ideological Leavers"?

    Brexit can't be an excuse forever. The "blue wall" is built on sand.
    While Boris is leader absolutely, ending free movement and regaining sovereignty is at the top of their agenda.

    A Starmer led Labour Party offering a return to the single market would have more chance winning Tory Remainers in London and the South than Labour Leavers who voted Tory at the last general election in the North, Wales and the Midlands
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    Nigelb said:

    Where David’s article is flat out wrong is that the debate matters a great deal.

    Most particularly in China, where this year they will determine the next five year plan - and the debate over coal is the most vp contentious part of that deliberation - and in the US, where there will be a choice between the Democrats and flat out climate ignorance.

    I don't think I say that the debate doesn't matter? On the contrary - the debate is an important part of educating the public. People will accept some adverse changes if they see a purpose to it. But there are limits.
    If all environmentalists have to offer is suffering, misery and impoverishment - which seems to be the base case for many - they will continue to convince only a minority. Their attitude is best seen in their reaction to positive change - UK electricity production sources for example - where the default is always “poor, not enough” with no hint of celebrating the change that has occurred.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Mr. Cwsc, that indicates a sharp rise in carbon dioxide, which makes sense as it goes up as industrial activity begins.

    That doesn't explain how global warming theory tallies with temperatures plateauing, contrary to all its adherents' expectations, around 2000 for a decade or so. It doesn't explain why grand claims of snowfall becoming a thing of the past proved such false prophecies.

    When a theory predicts things and the opposite happens it doesn't reinforce confidence in that theory, if one is applying a scientific and sceptical view of it.

    (Thanks, incidentally, for actually engaging in a debate on this).

    The standard model of particle physics does not explain the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

    Most scientists' reaction is, "The standard model is basically correct, it has made many successful predictions and it is well-grounded in physics, but there are some things we still don't really understand."

    The Morris_Dancer reaction is, "The whole fecking theory must be wrong, because it can't explain the magnetic moment of the muon"
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited January 2020
    Personally I think we probably have a fair bit to do with the recent climate change, and it seems obvious to me that man made things that pump stuff into the air, that would kill us if we inhaled it, don't do the planet any good.

    When it comes to the debate though, I think a lot of activist's politics tend to be of the kind that think that artificial structures are needed to police everything humans do, and that left untamed, humans are destructive, so they naturally believe that humans are more responsible for the damage than they possibly are
  • sirclive said:

    An emergency indicates an immediate threat or impending crisis demanding serious action.
    With mild warming of 1degree or so this is clearly nothing of the sort. Hardly anyone could identify this on a daily basis and as current crop reports have shown, highly beneficial to food production.
    The media have lied,manipulated and continue to whip up frenzy on the basis of weather events that have happened in the past (eg Oz fires 1974) and falsehoods (eg more extreme weather) that have been shown inaccurate(IPCC agreed no evidence of increasing severe weather).
    People have not done their homework...the likes of the Guardian etc are proven liars and the BBC truly compromised.I implore everyone to check the historical records for themselves or read independent blogs(eg.WUWT,Paul Homewood and Tony Heller) and come back here and still say they believe this extremist nonsense.

    tell that to the Australians
    Clearly you cant be bothered to check the historical facts
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Mr. Cwsc, correlation does not prove causation. Drownings and ice-cream sales in the UK have a very high degree of correlation.

    Furthermore, the climate's been around for billions of years and our data for that could be politely described as limited. We know it's changed drastically in the past without any need for human (industrial) cause. In the late 17th century temperatures in the UK declined significantly, entirely naturally.

    How would you explain the temperature plateau of a few years ago if the theory of carbon dioxide fuelling global warming is correct?

    Likeliest, a natural cooling period due to cyclical sun activity - which might otherwise have seen frost fairs on the Thames again - was countered by man-made warming such that they cancelled each other out.

    We don't know the affect of man on climate. But we can make some informed theories. And on the back of those, we can take a safety-first approach; man MIGHT be changing the climate, to the general detriment of swathes of the planet. So let's take some action. If we are wrong, then we are likely making no difference to the natural course of events (save for perhaps making the next ice-age a tad colder).

    But it is up to science to take the lead. Our politicians should be granting great incentives - tax breaks, subsidies, prizes - to those implementing such scientific advances.

    (We could also all use central heating far, far less. People in pass-out "toasty" warm houses bemoaning the loss of the polar bear when they have 37 different unworn jumpers in their wardrobe may not be a small part of the problem.)
    Which is pretty well my attitude, though I’m rather more convinced of the science.

    The gross investment in terms of worldwide GDP would likely be somewhere around 3-5% over the next twenty to twenty five years. As you’d end up replacing your entire energy system (for one with much lower marginal costs), the net cost to the economy is far less than that.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Blimey, two articles on green issues in a week!

    Anyway, in all the talk about infrastructure spending here, why are we not doing much much more to build charging points for electric cars all over the country. I have done quite a lot to my house to make it a bit greener (more insulation, water butts, solar panels etc) and the property I will be moving into will be very green indeed.

    But I still have and need to use a car (petrol not diesel) and would like to have an electric car. But they are (a) so expensive; (b) their range is limited; and (c) critically fast charging points are nowhere near sufficient. Little point banning petrol/diesel cars if there is not alternative.

    Only one small example I know. But in all the raging about China etc there is still quite a lot more that we could be doing here which would make some difference and which, if intelligently done, would not meet the sort of political resistance @David talks about.
This discussion has been closed.