Climate change, real or no deal.

[Maker]

doesn’t export more than a fraction of the world consumption.

Technically it would be impossible to export more than a fraction of world consumption. /pedant

 

[Screwdriver]

Where was all that CO2 before it got turned into fossil fuel?

It is a byproduct from living organisms so not as you may wish to believe, just floating about in the air. Those living things, plants, algae, dinosaurs etc. are carbon based lifeforms which had been sucking all the juice out of the sun over vast oceans of time before they expired. Having absorbed an enormous amount of energy and stored that energy in sugars, fats etc., they are then buried. Gigantic volumes of organic matter build up in the earths crust over millions of years where temperature, pressure and over unimaginable timescales form complex hydrocarbons. CO2 is released from those hydrocarbons as a byproduct of combustion.

The problem is, we have generated a massive amount of it in such a brief timescale a hundred years say, compared to the 100's of MILLIONS of years those complex molecules have been safely tucked away. That is not the same as say: a tree grows, absorbs CO2 which you burn and release "the same" volume of CO2. That is a sustainable energy source. CO2 goes in CO2 comes out. "Fossil" fuels just means fuels formed millions of years ago over countless millennia which have become incredibly dense energy stores.

During the industrial revolution and to date, we have been greedily burning huge amounts of this stuff creating a massive increase in CO2 levels which have shot up, almost double in 100 years. This planet has not adapted to form an equilibrium with the "greenhouse effect" that releasing huge volumes of CO2 has created. The climate will change, no doubt about that. Global temperatures are on the rise, meaning even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being released forming a positive feedback loop leading to even more warming.

Climate change skeptics really are only relying on the fact that climatologists don't know for certain what the overall effect will be. More extreme weather is almost a certainty with so much more energy in the atmosphere, amplifying weather systems like hurricanes, storms, cyclones etc. More of them and more bigger too.

I happen to quite like extreme weather (so long as I'm not stuck in it). Massive storms, violent lightning huge floods, sounds like great fun. It is quite possible the weather will change dramatically and we start to see ridiculously powerful winds of 100mph+ becoming commonplace. Currently the jet stream which basically controls the UK weather is playing up and not on it's usual course. The Gulf Stream also conspires to keep the UKs weather relatively mild considering our northerly latitude, that might also shift direction. In a generally warmer climate, the UK might well end up a lot colder and wetter with more extremes of weather and a lot more unpredictable than it is even now.

May you live in interesting times. Yes. Indeed we may...

 

[Morrisman]

Technically it would be impossible to export more than a fraction of world consumption. /pedant

I see you edited my post to leave out the world ‘tiny’...

 

[DAPPH]

The old Tesco supermarket in my home town, huge place boarded up for several years when it was replaced. After a year or more the sheets of chipboard got rotted, ripped up a bit, you could see every light in the place was on, hundreds of flouro tubes.

Why? Why on earth would they do that? To keep thieves out? There was nothing to steal, it was awaiting demolition.

Perhaps it was a deliberate sabotage attempt by disgruntled former managerial staff to cost Tesco a lot of wasted money on power.

 

[DAPPH]

A third of the population are obese, a third are starving, the others are actually doing it right.

If greed, gluttony and stupidity could be regulated the planet would be a great place to live for all.

I find it incredibly hard to believe our ‘leaders’ started WW2 just 20 years after ‘The wars to end all wars’ had finished. The planet had barely finished grieving the Great War, before the clowns were at it all over again. The sheer destruction and wastage of resources that stupidity involved is staggering.

The world also took a massive step forward wrt new inventions & medicines many of which are still around today and used for both peace & war like situations.

 

[DAPPH]

It is a byproduct from living organisms so not as you may wish to believe, just floating about in the air. Those living things, plants, algae, dinosaurs etc. are carbon based lifeforms which had been sucking all the juice out of the sun over vast oceans of time before they expired. Having absorbed an enormous amount of energy and stored that energy in sugars, fats etc., they are then buried. Gigantic volumes of organic matter build up in the earths crust over millions of years where temperature, pressure and over unimaginable timescales form complex hydrocarbons. CO2 is released from those hydrocarbons as a byproduct of combustion.

The problem is, we have generated a massive amount of it in such a brief timescale a hundred years say, compared to the 100's of MILLIONS of years those complex molecules have been safely tucked away. That is not the same as say: a tree grows, absorbs CO2 which you burn and release "the same" volume of CO2. That is a sustainable energy source. CO2 goes in CO2 comes out. "Fossil" fuels just means fuels formed millions of years ago over countless millennia which have become incredibly dense energy stores.

During the industrial revolution and to date, we have been greedily burning huge amounts of this stuff creating a massive increase in CO2 levels which have shot up, almost double in 100 years. This planet has not adapted to form an equilibrium with the "greenhouse effect" that releasing huge volumes of CO2 has created. The climate will change, no doubt about that. Global temperatures are on the rise, meaning even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being released forming a positive feedback loop leading to even more warming.

Climate change skeptics really are only relying on the fact that climatologists don't know for certain what the overall effect will be. More extreme weather is almost a certainty with so much more energy in the atmosphere, amplifying weather systems like hurricanes, storms, cyclones etc. More of them and more bigger too.

I happen to quite like extreme weather (so long as I'm not stuck in it). Massive storms, violent lightning huge floods, sounds like great fun. It is quite possible the weather will change dramatically and we start to see ridiculously powerful winds of 100mph+ becoming commonplace. Currently the jet stream which basically controls the UK weather is playing up and not on it's usual course. The Gulf Stream also conspires to keep the UKs weather relatively mild considering our northerly latitude, that might also shift direction. In a generally warmer climate, the UK might well end up a lot colder and wetter with more extremes of weather and a lot more unpredictable than it is even now.

May you live in interesting times. Yes. Indeed we may...

So nothing about the perma frost regions thawing and releasing massive amounts of gasses?

 

[Screwdriver]

So nothing about the perma frost regions thawing and releasing massive amounts of gasses?

You mean like this:

Global temperatures are on the rise, meaning even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being released forming a positive feedback loop leading to even more warming.

Why do you ask?

 

[Morrisman]

The world also took a massive step forward wrt new inventions & medicines many of which are still around today and used for both peace & war like situations.

So that justifies the wars? I guess we also learned a lot from the horrendous tortures and deprivations performed by the Japs and Germans, in the name of medicine, for which we should be eternally grateful.....?

 

[8ob]

That's just a talk about immigration and poverty. Not seeing any correlation with climate change or energy use.
The problem arises only if or when this gigantic number of those who live in poverty would like to enjoy the riches we have gathered for ourselves in the developed world.

I think its relevant, 280m folk a year landing in the developed countries and expecting a similar lifestyle will surely have a huge impact on the environment. Next year another 290+M join the queue, its not sustainable and wipes out any gains the developing countries make. I am all for electric cars in towns and cities because there are folk living in them that are literally choking to death, I am pro insulation and energy conservation. I am not so sure the whole power generation thing is as environmentally squeaky clean as we are led to believe.

Bob

 

[mike os]

So nothing about the perma frost regions thawing and releasing massive amounts of gasses?

How long have the permafrost areas now in existence been there do you think?

 

[Screwdriver]

I think its relevant, 280m folk a year landing in the developed countries and expecting a similar lifestyle will surely have a huge impact on the environment. Next year another 290+M join the queue, its not sustainable and wipes out any gains the developing countries make. I am all for electric cars in towns and cities because there are folk living in them that are literally choking to death, I am pro insulation and energy conservation. I am not so sure the whole power generation thing is as environmentally squeaky clean as we are led to believe.

Bob

I think that's a bit far fetched tbh. More likely their assumed relative poverty means they won't be either obese or as energy inefficient as your typical westerner. To whit, they'll end up diluting the excesses of their host nation.

The other point a lot of people either forget or ignore is that poverty and happiness is relative. If there was no evil in the world, how would you recognise the good in people? I like to compare you humans to apes or chimpanzees, also hominid social animals but would happily tear another creature apart and devour it alive. I think chimpanzees actually enjoy the suffering they cause while doing it and while we as a species are not direct descendants, it is the low bar for hominid behaviour. Everything else is a bonus.

The is good and bad in all of us and I have to laugh when there is a riot because "someone has parked in 'my' spot" a typical first world issue while at the same time, a solid half of the planet is a lot more worried about how they are going to find a meal tomorrow. I lived and worked in Syria for a while and I don't think I have ever experienced a more friendly bunch who when they say "my house is your house" they really mean it! More recently in London, "gangs" of "immigrants" are setting up car washes, tyre shops or delivery companies etc. I like to have a chat and a laugh with them and I find they have life stories that would make your toes curl but a work ethic that could teach us all a lesson.

Climate change and the inevitable rise of global warming is a western, post industrial invention. We did it, we are the cause of it and we should not pass the blame on the vast numbers of those people's who have not yet enjoyed the benefit of this orgy of destruction. The point I was about to make before I got side tracked was that capitalism and excess consumerism is also a major player in tearing up the earths resources. Slash and burn in the Amazon, same in Borneo/Malaysia. We are robbing the planet of its riches to line the pockets of those already rich enough to buy an island in the Bahamas and to fill the supermarkets with luxury products we take for granted.

But capitalism is a giant Ponzi scheme. It is a pyramidal structure and in order for any of us to "succeed" in a capitalist society, we judge our success in comparison to the failure or poverty of others. We "need" a constant influx of bottom feeders to come in and prop up the base as we elevate ourselves further up the social hierarchy. Clearly this can't go on forever and is unsustainable whether or not the oil will ever run out (it won't) but we can't start blaming it on the third world nations who would like to have what we've already got.

 

[Maker]

I am not so sure the whole power generation thing is as environmentally squeaky clean as we are led to believe.

Definitely not. We did a project at uni a few years ago about waste incinerators like the one in Sheffield, I can't find the exact figure now (Or any figures actually, the whole website seems intentionally vague), but it was along the lines of 24MW of power is produced and 16MW of that comes from the natural gas required to keep it hot enough to keep the emissions down. I'm not saying I'd rather see it go to landfill but you can hardly call it green energy when it's basically an open cycle gas turbine, which, I just checked, currently produce zero percent of the UK's energy because they're so inefficient.

 

[8ob]

Definitely not. We did a project at uni a few years ago about waste incinerators like the one in Sheffield, I can't find the exact figure now (Or any figures actually, the whole website seems intentionally vague), but it was along the lines of 24MW of power is produced and 16MW of that comes from the natural gas required to keep it hot enough to keep the emissions down. I'm not saying I'd rather see it go to landfill but you can hardly call it green energy when it's basically an open cycle gas turbine, which, I just checked, currently produce zero percent of the UK's energy because they're so inefficient.

Its as bad as the biomass scene, a huge proportion of our woodlands have been raped of timber to make chip for burning/power generation leaving us importers/reliant on timber which has to be shipped in from all over world, carbon neutral my ......... .

Bob

 

[premmington]

I am pretty sure it is population growth that is the real problem.

More people consuming more.

Not an easy subject to embrace - as humans - to stop rebreeding.

Better health care - better food production - less wars - less death at birth - less death and disease - less plague and pertilence - more tech making everything easier.

But what you are left with - is too many medium sized mammals - with less poverty - and more money - consuming everything a greater rate - breeding more children doing the same. More children breeding more children at an exponential growth rate.

The world population has doubled since 1971 from 3.76 to 7.9 million in 2021.

That is twice as much of everything being consumed at a conservative estimate.

If you wanna halve your carbon footprint for the next generation in one foul swoop - as a married couple only bring one child into the world.


Nobody wants to talk about this thou

 

[fizzy]

Its as bad as the biomass scene, a huge proportion of our woodlands have been raped of timber to make chip for burning/power generation leaving us importers/reliant on timber which has to be shipped in from all over world, carbon neutral my ......... .

Bob

Definitely makes my blood boil.
Meanwhile France continues to be the lowest CO2 producer in the World.
People are so blind

 

[Screwdriver]

I am pretty sure it is population growth that is the real problem.

More people consuming more.

Not an easy subject to embrace - as humans - to stop rebreeding.

Better health care - better food production - less wars - less death at birth - less death and disease - less plague and pertilence - more tech making everything easier.

But what you are left with - is too many medium sized mammals - with less poverty - and more money - consuming everything a greater rate - breeding more children doing the same. More children breeding more children at an exponential growth rate.

The world population has doubled since 1971 from 3.76 to 7.9 million in 2021.

That is twice as much of everything being consumed at a conservative estimate.

If you wanna halve your carbon footprint for the next generation in one foul swoop - as a married couple only bring one child into the world.


Nobody wants to talk about this thou

China did that thank goodness and their one child project has had unintended consequences. If two people only have one child, the next generation are going to be supporting twice the number of elderly and infirm. China have benefitted from a largely male 20-40 year old generation at the peak of their useful working lives (curious how many of those single children were male...). The generation behind them is much lower in number, also predominantly male with a gigantic population of elderly to support. China has gone as far as it can with their plans for world domination, it's downhill from now on.

Population size is most definitely NOT the problem worldwide. It's not even "a" problem. The problem is more about what they expect to "achieve" in terms of rampant consumerism to support the capitalist business model and energy consumption to allow for personal transport among other excesses.

It is not the number of people, it is the expectation that the emerging developing nations will want to squander the planets resources at the same rate that we do currently. We in the developed world can't stop the developing world from doing as we have already done (and are continuing to do). We do not have the moral authority. So it is not the sheer number of people that is the problem, it is capitalism and escalating consumerism which is the underlying issue.

 

[eLuSiVeMiTe]

t is capitalism and escalating consumerism which is the underlying issue.

I always get funny looks for stating much the same.

 

[fizzy]

China did that thank goodness and their one child project has had unintended consequences. If two people only have one child, the next generation are going to be supporting twice the number of elderly and infirm. China have benefitted from a largely male 20-40 year old generation at the peak of their useful working lives (curious how many of those single children were male...). The generation behind them is much lower in number, also predominantly male with a gigantic population of elderly to support. China has gone as far as it can with their plans for world domination, it's downhill from now on.

Population size is most definitely NOT the problem worldwide. It's not even "a" problem. The problem is more about what they expect to "achieve" in terms of rampant consumerism to support the capitalist business model and energy consumption to allow for personal transport among other excesses.

It is not the number of people, it is the expectation that the emerging developing nations will want to squander the planets resources at the same rate that we do currently. We in the developed world can't stop the developing world from doing as we have already done (and are continuing to do). We do not have the moral authority. So it is not the sheer number of people that is the problem, it is capitalism and escalating consumerism which is the underlying issue.

I agree with most of your points.
Why shouldn't poor people want to change their lives? How would poor people feel in Victorian Britain if people had told them they couldn't get to better themselves?
I don't agree with it being blamed on capitalism. It's called progress.
What does get me is that all the Greens want to do is get people to cut back and go to a simpler lifestyle. It's NOT going to happen!
What is wrong with abundant cheap energy if it doesn't put out CO2? It will mean food can be grown indoors with far higher yields and no pests. We are already close to lab grown meat.
It is Science and technology that has improved our lives and will continue to do so. Not glorified political ideals.

 

[Screwdriver]

I agree with most of your points.
Why shouldn't poor people want to change their lives? How would poor people feel in Victorian Britain if people had told them they couldn't get to better themselves?
I don't agree with it being blamed on capitalism. It's called progress.
What does get me is that all the Greens want to do is get people to cut back and go to a simpler lifestyle. It's NOT going to happen!
What is wrong with abundant cheap energy if it doesn't put out CO2? It will mean food can be grown indoors with far higher yields and no pests. We are already close to lab grown meat.
It is Science and technology that has improved our lives and will continue to do so. Not glorified political ideals.

They should wish to better themselves of course. What is actually happening though is that the west is selling into those countries to develop those markets and encourage the same "capitalist business model" and rampant consumerism that has brought us to this point. We are encouraging them to aspire to the exact same thing that allows our society to destroy the planet in the name of progress. Same big global corporations are doing it too.

 

[DAPPH]

How long have the permafrost areas now in existence been there do you think?

Don't know but apparently they are melting and giving off all manner of gasses as they decompose .