Climate Change

A quick search shows we have touched on this in numerous threads, but we have not had a single thread about this topic for some time. The BBC just reported that the change is accelerating as leaders are meeting at the UN this week--guess who is not there, guess who was not invited.

Considering that there was a worldwide walkout by youth this weekend who are concerned about their future, I was taken by the statement, "We don't want to by your hope. we want you to take action."

Two questions: How is climate change impacting your part of the world? And are you hopeful we can mitigate this significantly?

«1345678

Comments

  • Youth doesn't count. Because it can't vote or doesn't when it can and has zero economic power. Spring came early. There is no hope whatsoever apart from Eurasian population crash. 4 degrees by 2400
  • Silly me, 4 degrees by 2120.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Silly me, 4 degrees by 2120.

    That is so far out. I am thinking that we can come up with solutions to stabilize the warming within the next 50 years. At what temp, I am not saying, though.
  • I've been the most hopeful I've been in a while after hearing of the shift from "earth day" to firm protests, a shift from taking personal responsibilty to holding the corporations responsible for obfuscating and funding denial.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    How is climate change impacting your part of the world?
    Here in southern California we have more hot days in the summer. The cool weather in the fall comes later. The droughts are drier. When it does rain, it proverbially pours. And the government of this coastal city is afraid to say the words "managed retreat" because the part of town that will be under water is occupied by wealthy people who will get the city to build a seawall that will prove useless rather quickly.
    And are you hopeful we can mitigate this significantly?

    Can? Yes. Will? No. By the time we are collectively concerned enough to force our governments into real action it will be too late to prevent significant climate change.
  • Impacts locally? Towns out here (Rural Queensland) are running out of water. Two towns near here are already trucking water in, as their dams are totally empty. We’ve had about 20 mm of rain for the entire year, this year. The first week of spring saw bushfires burning is around 20 locations, including in rainforest on the coast. I am keeping my swag, a bag and important documents in the car in case we have a fire and have to evacuate quickly. I am reusing as much grey water as I can, to keep my garden alive. I’m a beekeeper, and haven’t robbed this year, as there’s just no nectar in the flowers. I have had to put out water for the bees.

    The long term forecast is for hot, dry, windy weather at least until the beginning of next year. This is a farming area - winter crops were not planted, and I doubt there will be spring planting, either. Farms are de-stocking quite drastically. And our wonderful government doesn’t have a climate policy, while the agriculture minister is on record as saying he doesn’t know what is causing climate change...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Sydney and much of the coast had good rain last week, the first for a long while. Still extremely dry on and west of the Range. Some of the New England towns are restricting residents to a shower a week, others further inland shipping water in as Athrawes describes. Then the stupidity of the Federal ministers beggars belief, even those from the Country Party.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Silly me, 4 degrees by 2120.

    That is so far out. I am thinking that we can come up with solutions to stabilize the warming within the next 50 years. At what temp, I am not saying, though.
    We've known for 50 years that we need to reduce carbon emissions, and global emissions continue to accelerate. There are steps we can take now, but generally don't take. Here, many people take small steps towards increased energy efficiency to cut their fuel bills, but very little movement towards cutting consumption of red meat, reducing car use, cutting down on the convenience of internet shopping and disposable fashion items etc. We've had the technology to build zero-carbon homes (at the same cost within a few percent) for more than a decade, why haven't all homes built in the last 10 years been built to these standards? We know the value of trees as carbon sinks (plus mopping up other pollutants), why does the UK cut down more trees each year than we plant? We've had plenty of alternatives to burning coal to generate electricity, why are there still coal stations operating (in Scotland, ours are all closed down which isn't true throughout the UK) and in some places more being built? Why don't we have high speed rail throughout the country and internationally, it should be quicker and cheaper to get a train from Glasgow to London or onto Paris or Frankfurt than it is to fly, yet we still depend on air travel for these short journeys at great environmental cost.

    It would be great if in the next 50 years we develop technology to stabilize, even reverse, our impact on the climate. But, it would be irresponsible to rely on as yet to be imagined (let alone developed and proven) technology and ignore the steps we can currently take, especially as every year that passes increases the cost of those steps.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Silly me, 4 degrees by 2120.

    That is so far out. I am thinking that we can come up with solutions to stabilize the warming within the next 50 years. At what temp, I am not saying, though.

    Your 2070 is half way to 2120. 2 degrees. I'm assuming the northern population crash will bring the CO2 emissions down - less rich consumers, but that won't stabilize: After reaching 4 degrees it will start to come down.

    The only solution is massively tax consumption, which is democratically impossible.
  • In South East Australia we are warmer and dryer. They used to count 35°C plus days over summer. Now they count 40°C plus days. Extended bushfire seasons are the norm.

    We just had an election which meant a big new coal mine is going ahead up north. The wolves are in charge.
  • There's going to be some significant conflict. Because standard of living can't be lowered in our affluent countries without conflict. We don't have even a taste of problems and we get things like Brexit and trumpy: here oil and has worker protests and threats of breakup of country . The big lowering of standard of living hasn't even really happened and people are prone to anger, protest and fascism. What's next?

    What would discourage you from things which directly affect you? 10 times more for fuel for your car? A per mile or per km fee? Also attached to any product shipped to you directly or to a store? Increase the cost of your holiday trip by how much?

    Gasoline here is between 1.09 to 1.20 per litre (4.54 l per UK gallon, 3.89 per USA: multiply by 4 to get an estimate). Would it take a 5x or 10x increase in cost to discourage you driving? But it won't happen. Not without violence. And no gov't will commit such suicide.

    On the other hand, we've bought a condo (4 units side by side) within a development of 60. Geo-thermal heating and cooling. No burning of fossil fuels which is a big amount in the Canadian climate. $70k additional cost to the unit to do this. Forcing such things- and making people pay is probably also politically untenable.

    So:
    Would you agree to a $70k one time tax on your home? Forced retro-fitting? Plus the 5-10x cost of fuel for your car? Plus maybe charging a transportion tax on everything you buy?

    I think it's unlikely.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited September 23
    Actually, I wouldn’t mind forced retro-fitting of energy stuff (geothermal, whatever) on our house, because it would show that the govt actually want to do something, and it would help with my current feeling of miserable paralysis.

    Kid B took part in the climate strike on Friday. I’m simultaneously proud of her and disappointed in my generation’s willingness to do the things that need to be done.

    We’ve reduced our meat consumption. We take 1 short haul flight holiday every 5 years, and don’t fly otherwise. I’m sure there are huge amounts more we can do, though my friend in XR tells me nothing individuals do is likely to be enough - I’m paraphrasing him slightly I’m sure, this was from a conversation in the pub last night, and we were a couple of pints in...
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Bean and pasta bake for tea tonight. However I am pessimistic; whenever I go to the Scout Hut at pick up time several cars will be idling, often for tens of minutes. What hope is there when people will power a radio with a 2 litre petrol generator?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    In South East Australia we are warmer and dryer. They used to count 35°C plus days over summer. Now they count 40°C plus days. Extended bushfire seasons are the norm.

    We just had an election which meant a big new coal mine is going ahead up north. The wolves are in charge.

    We are the wolves. Which is an insult to wolves of course.
  • I notice Ed Milliband pushing the Green New Deal, which will presumably be adopted by Labour. It's quite clever in offering benefits, e.g., new jobs, better quality of life. But you will have the old dilemma, do you force people, or do you leave it up to them? Will people really cut flights, driving, meat?

    But there's an old saying in therapy, people only do it when they're desperate. Thus, if that is correct, it's catastrophe that will bring change, unfortunately. Of course, the deniers will deny in any case. But how much catastrophe?
  • Miliband is also talking of a wartime mobilization over climate. This seems correct, but then you have Juncker's joke, I can bring in various measures, but how will I get elected afterwards?
  • But there's an old saying in therapy, people only do it when they're desperate. Thus, if that is correct, it's catastrophe that will bring change, unfortunately. Of course, the deniers will deny in any case. But how much catastrophe?

    Not sure who your therapist is, with such a statement about desperation. That's a very pessimistic view. I'm guilty of pessimism as well re climate and the decline of the environment of the planet. On the other hand, we do see a gathering momentum. Governments don't lead, they follow. The shift in power from the baby boom to the millenials is going to take decades. I recall the pictures of burning cars and soldiers in the streets during the 1960s. They did get the end of their war. They did get at least some civil rights.

    There's a community psychology approach basically puts everyone with power to effect change into an understanding that they are all in the public heath business. This includes civil engineers (the people who build our cities' infrastructure), school teachers, energy companies, grocers, furniture designers and merchants - everyone. Tax policy is public health promoting, or not. You're either contributing to change or are threatened by it. This is what I see from this perspective in the reactionary voting patterns and installation of reactionary people and policies.

    The hearts and minds aspect. Therapy as you refer to may involve some "in the head" activities, but ultimately requires behaviour change. And reinforcement for that changed behaviour. And we need active behaviour, where talking is passive or on the line between passive and active, so not enough. Forcing people to pay is active, but meets with great resistance. The problem is, as I see it, how to get people to move from ideas to actual behaviour, even if it is troubling or painful, but the right thing. We've figured out how to do it with people with physical and operational mental health stress issues: we require attendance at rehabilitation programs, and make their income dependent on attending, but gain positive motivation in the context of that tie to income such that the threat is actually theoretical, not real. Because negative reinforcement doesn't motivate.


  • Here is Greta's Thunberg's speech to the UN--at least a transcript. Pretty damning.
  • I notice Ed Milliband pushing the Green New Deal, which will presumably be adopted by Labour. It's quite clever in offering benefits, e.g., new jobs, better quality of life.

    “Better quality of life” my arse. Climate Change will have to be faced up to eventually, one way or another, but the one thing that’s absolutely clear to me is that when that facing up happens my quality of life - and that of most people in the Western World - will go down. Probably quite a lot.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    We've known for 50 years that we need to reduce carbon emissions
    So why haven't we ?

    Perhaps because any one country that 50 years ago decided to limit its economic growth for the sake of reducing global emissions would now be significantly poorer and yet still face essentially the same climate threat as they do today ?

    In other words, tragedy of the commons ?

    So what prevents the commoners getting together and agreeing a system of quotas ?

    Politics ? Which is to say a lack of any agreed basis for allocating quotas between richer and poorer nations, faster-growing and slow-growing nations, nations with more and less extreme climates ?

    But wasn't all that sorted out at Kyoto and the summit meetings that followed ?

    Is the issue that the democracies of the world didn't buy into what their representatives negotiated ?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Here is Greta's Thunberg's speech to the UN--at least a transcript. Pretty damning.

    Of whom?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Climate Change will have to be faced up to eventually

    Or is it that the politicians compete to tell us we can have our luxuries in this half-decade and sort it out later, because they know that's what we want to hear and will vote for ?

    Or is it that they can't bear to tax emissions instead of taxing other things because they're hung up on the political questions of who's better off and who's worse off as a result ?
  • On the other hand, we've bought a condo (4 units side by side) within a development of 60. Geo-thermal heating and cooling. No burning of fossil fuels which is a big amount in the Canadian climate. $70k additional cost to the unit to do this. Forcing such things- and making people pay is probably also politically untenable.

    So:
    Would you agree to a $70k one time tax on your home?
    Housing is a good example of things that should be happening. The UK government stymied attempts to make carbon neutral housing mandatory for new build*. That's despite the fact that in the UK carbon neutral housing costs the same to build (no more than 10% extra) as conventional housing - this may not be the case in other areas, eg: where housing needs to deal with lower or higher temperatures affecting the necessary amount of insulation and capacity of heat pumps. How many homes have been built since then?

    * In 2006, the Brown government announced that all housing should be carbon neutral from 2016. The Cameron government scrapped this in 2015, over objections by housebuilders as well as environmentalists.
  • Russ wrote: »
    We've known for 50 years that we need to reduce carbon emissions
    So why haven't we ?
    Because we're stupid. We're idolaters, we can't worship both sustainability and endless growth.

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Here is Greta's Thunberg's speech to the UN--at least a transcript. Pretty damning.

    Of whom?

    Of you and me. And more damning of leaders.

    Probably prosecutions are in order. And if the courts don't enforce things, will people turn to assassination? Destruction of infrastructure? We've heard in Canada that the authorities are monitoring such things, which suggests they've assessed a risk for violence. Expect same in other countries.
  • Haven't read Greta's transcript yet. But, from a clip I heard repeatedly throughout the day, Greta basically shamed and blamed all leaders--with great fury. Someone said she usually speaks calmly, and this was unusual.

    I'm worried about her. Often, bad things happen to someone who stands up like that. I don't want anything to happen to her--and I don't like to think how her movement would react if something happened to her. Or how law enforcement might react to *them*.
    (:votive:)
  • Answering NP's post above as honestly as I can and being who I am, I don't think I will do anything to change the way I do things in order to help the climate change. I support going full renewable, I oppose nuclear with all my might, but I will only change my behavior under legal or financial compulsion.

    I'm not going to stop eating meat. I'm not going to stop or moderate my plane travel. I will continue to blithely use power and petrol. I will not change anything about what I do because of climate change.

    I don't think any particular justification rings true. The closest is that I am unconvinced that personal action will change our climate trajectory. I think that what might change it is large scale actions and radical changes by big countries and economies, including Australia. I think that in the absence of those changes, we are screwed.

    But the reality is that I am selfish and stubborn and I will only make changes I don't want to make if I am forced to do so.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Forcing people to pay is active, but meets with great resistance.

    Making better choices easier for people to make is another route. Raising the price of gasoline would reduce my use of my car. Giving me a better way to get around would eliminate my car ownership.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Haven't read Greta's transcript yet. But, from a clip I heard repeatedly throughout the day, Greta basically shamed and blamed all leaders--with great fury. Someone said she usually speaks calmly, and this was unusual.

    I'm worried about her. Often, bad things happen to someone who stands up like that. I don't want anything to happen to her--and I don't like to think how her movement would react if something happened to her. Or how law enforcement might react to *them*.
    (:votive:)

    We have an autistic spectrum grandson who can get real upset like Greta was today. I have the same fear.

    After Greta gave her speech, she encountered Trump--who was there for the General Assembly, not the climate change conference in the hallway. She glared at him as he walked past her. I doubt he even knew sho she was. She happens to be a nominee for the Noble Peace Prize and your not, DT.
  • Gramps--

    Greta reportedly is "mildly autistic". (Was mentioned in passing on the radio.)

    Forgive my ignorance, but is your grandson's anger you spoke of something that seems/is out of control? I mostly heard an audio clip, and ISTM that she wasn't so much out of control as very angry.

    I would've loved for her to tell T off personally, even in just a few sentences. But, considering the way he thinks about and treats both under-age girls (e.g., beauty contestants) and grown women, that might not be safe for her. Except maybe from about 15 feet away.

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited September 24
    Greta Thunberg comes from an interesting family and there have been suggestions that she is being or has been manipulated by one or more of them.

    While I appreciate that she is very passionate about climate change, I don't think she gets the fullest picture, and am concerned that the adulation of her gives other, perhaps less scrupulous people a chance to jump on the Greta bandwagon and pursue their own goals.

    I find it profoundly depressing that with all of the growing evidence that the planet is under severe strain there is still mass avoidance of the issue of population. One of the few people brave enough to mention it is David Attenborough and every time he brings it up in interviews it passes without comment and the interviewer moves onto something else.

    Population is important. There is no point trying to limit climate change if at the same time you're adding people to the population.

    Added closing ] to url. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Population is important, but it is complex. The populations with the fastest growth are not the ones with the highest carbon footprints. Simply put, a family with two children in the USA is likely contributing more to climate change than a family with four children in a developing country in Africa, for example.

    I think the main reason change is so slow is that human beings are able to live with massive amounts of cognitive dissonance. It’s also a threat that our brains are ill-equipped to deal with because our animal instincts, on which we usually rely on to keep us out of danger, don’t experience it as an immediate existential threat.
  • Yes, I think the immediate threat is lacking, for many people. That's why I say change follows catastrophe. There are catastrophic effects going on, fire and flood, but here in London, one can ignore them. How much worse will it get, to shake our denial?
  • The North's population will crash this century.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    The North's population will crash this century.
    The number of people born on people born in so-called developed nations is falling, and will continue to fall. The populations of those nations won't fall, and will probably rise, because our economies and societies will need young people and thus will need to accept migrants born elsewhere.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 24
    Of course. I had joined up those dots but not expressed it. Out of Africa. Sooooo, consumption can't drop. Hadn't joined up those dots! Until the South becomes uninhabitable and no longer exports people. 2400? 6 degrees.
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    edited September 24
    Martin54, would you make clear what temperature scale you are using.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited September 24
    Greta Thunberg comes from an interesting family and there have been suggestions that she is being or has been manipulated by one or more of them.

    While I appreciate that she is very passionate about climate change, I don't think she gets the fullest picture, and am concerned that the adulation of her gives other, perhaps less scrupulous people a chance to jump on the Greta bandwagon and pursue their own goals.
    It's pretty disturbing the lengths that the right is willing to go to to try and discredit Thunberg. While some of them are willing to attack Thunberg herself, the more devious are launching insidious and vile talking points like the above into public discourse, to attack Thunberg's family and support network. Otherwise decent people seem to be taken in and think it's somehow less vile to attack her family because you don't specify which members you are suggesting are 'manipulating' her or are 'less scrupulous'. And somehow are led to think that there's something similar in - gasp, shock! - a teenager having a similar political outlook to the rest of her family.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Haven't read Greta's transcript yet. But, from a clip I heard repeatedly throughout the day, Greta basically shamed and blamed all leaders--with great fury. Someone said she usually speaks calmly, and this was unusual.

    I'm worried about her. Often, bad things happen to someone who stands up like that. I don't want anything to happen to her--and I don't like to think how her movement would react if something happened to her. Or how law enforcement might react to *them*.
    (:votive:)

    It's a chilling sort of comfort, but the impact her martyrdom (in the case of life-threatening physical harm) would have on her movement probably protects her from that. More worrisome is the possibility of her being discredited in some fashion that actually "sticks." I'm too naive myself to conceive of what that would take, but this is the world, and I have no doubt that people like Stephen Miller could craft something of that ilk.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think any particular justification rings true. The closest is that I am unconvinced that personal action will change our climate trajectory. I think that what might change it is large scale actions and radical changes by big countries and economies, including Australia. I think that in the absence of those changes, we are screwed.

    But the reality is that I am selfish and stubborn and I will only make changes I don't want to make if I am forced to do so.

    This is probably correct. Pitching climate change solutions in terms of personal virtue is both ineffective and misdirected. Climate change is the kind of large-scale collective action problem that caused humans to invent government and other large-scale organizations in the first place.
  • Martin54, would you make clear what temperature scale you are using.

    ? Kelvin.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54, would you make clear what temperature scale you are using.

    ? Kelvin.
    Thank you.

    As Americans are on this thread too, who are more used to Fahrenheit, as far as I know, it can be a bit confusing.
  • Indeed. My apologies. Only us Brits use both I s'pose.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't think any particular justification rings true. The closest is that I am unconvinced that personal action will change our climate trajectory. I think that what might change it is large scale actions and radical changes by big countries and economies, including Australia. I think that in the absence of those changes, we are screwed.

    But the reality is that I am selfish and stubborn and I will only make changes I don't want to make if I am forced to do so.

    This is probably correct. Pitching climate change solutions in terms of personal virtue is both ineffective and misdirected. Climate change is the kind of large-scale collective action problem that caused humans to invent government and other large-scale organizations in the first place.

    That said, small actions by large numbers of individual actors IS essentially "collective action," and can (and has) had large-scale effects (for both good and ill). My personal efforts to avoid plastics and take shorter showers, etc. count for almost nothing. But when large numbers of others follow suit, there's measurable effect.

    So it seems that what we're really arguing here is that our species prefers being coerced by some third party onto whom we've offloaded our personal responsibilities into taking action . . . is that where we stand?

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited September 24
    Dafyd wrote: »
    And somehow are led to think that there's something similar in - gasp, shock! - a teenager having a similar political outlook to the rest of her family.

    By the same reasoning has anyone evaluated William Hague for Stockholm syndrome?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Greta Thunberg comes from an interesting family and there have been suggestions that she is being or has been manipulated by one or more of them.

    While I appreciate that she is very passionate about climate change, I don't think she gets the fullest picture, and am concerned that the adulation of her gives other, perhaps less scrupulous people a chance to jump on the Greta bandwagon and pursue their own goals.
    It's pretty disturbing the lengths that the right is willing to go to to try and discredit Thunberg. While some of them are willing to attack Thunberg herself, the more devious are launching insidious and vile talking points like the above into public discourse, to attack Thunberg's family and support network. Otherwise decent people seem to be taken in and think it's somehow less vile to attack her family because you don't specify which members you are suggesting are 'manipulating' her or are 'less scrupulous'. And somehow are led to think that there's something similar in - gasp, shock! - a teenager having a similar political outlook to the rest of her family.

    I am not trying to discredit her at all. I think she has been fantastic a galvanising young people to look at the issue of climate change and become engaged with lobbying governments to stop talking and to actually do something about it. Moreover, her crossing the Atlantic on a racing yacht showed just how far she is prepared to go to keep her carbon footprint small - a racing yacht is not somewhere for the faint-hearted even if just taking part in a simple Round-the-Island race, never mind a pond crossing.

    The questions about her family jumping on Greta's fame bandwagon were initially raised in the Swedish press a good 6 months ago and have been largely refuted as nonsense - but it was not of them I was thinking, rather people such as the anarchists who disrupted a school students' climate rally in Paris.

    By all means pigeonhole me but make sure you get the right roosting spot - you were 180 degrees off on this one.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    By all means pigeonhole me but make sure you get the right roosting spot - you were 180 degrees off on this one.
    I did try to distinguish between the people who are originated this stuff and the people who are being taken in by this stuff (on the assumption that I'm right to think the stuff has no merit). Propaganda would be pointless if the only people who believe it and pass it on are the people who would express those views anyway.
    My apologies for being unclear.


  • Aye Ohher. As Barbarossa rolled, Stalin went in to (his personal) retreat. When the Politburo came he assumed it was to execute him. They gave him supreme power.

    Global warming is no where near bad enough for the North to do that, if ever.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I think the spiritual principle is about leaven. Acts of personal responsibility may seem ineffective when viewed against the massive scale of the problem, yet they may have some kind of multiplier value which is by no means obvious. Plus I agree the need for concerted government-led global response, no matter how politicised and ineffective that may seem to be. Things seem likely to get worse before they get better, and much worse than if courageous and far-sighted actions had been taken earlier. But I have not given up hope.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Gramps--

    Greta reportedly is "mildly autistic". (Was mentioned in passing on the radio.)

    Forgive my ignorance, but is your grandson's anger you spoke of something that seems/is out of control? I mostly heard an audio clip, and ISTM that she wasn't so much out of control as very angry.

    I would've loved for her to tell T off personally, even in just a few sentences. But, considering the way he thinks about and treats both under-age girls (e.g., beauty contestants) and grown women, that might not be safe for her. Except maybe from about 15 feet away.

    My grandson is high functioning on the autistic spectrum. But, when he gets angry he has the same look as Greta does (See Video).
Sign In or Register to comment.