Cop 26 And The Climate

[DAVIDH]

I don't think people will cancel. More likely those who haven't booked yet, might think twice when they see the costs. I personally don't think these prices will stick, and wouldn't be surprised to see a lower set in place after Christmas if the overseas market gets going again. Having said that, one thing I didn't consider earlier, was the desire for people to be more "green", to not fly as much as before the pandemic began. The COP 26 agenda has been front and centre over the last week or so, and is bound to influence people's choices in the future. They may now take perhaps one main holiday abroad, and substitute overseas city breaks etc, with holidays at home. There's lots of variables. 

[Mouldy]

3 hours ago, DAVIDH said:

 . . . . . . . . . Having said that, one thing I didn't consider earlier, was the desire for people to be more "green", to not fly as much as before the pandemic began. The COP 26 agenda has been front and centre over the last week or so, and is bound to influence people's choices in the future. They may now take perhaps one main holiday abroad, and substitute overseas city breaks etc, with holidays at home. There's lots of variables. 

Do you really think that the welfare of the planet will deter the vast majority of folk who usually holiday abroad?  My feeling is that the concern over the planet will largely take second place to some folks desire to seek the sun.

That said, I am very cynical and may have underestimated attitudes towards the environment, especially when they affect individuals freedoms.

[andyg]

38 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Do you really think that the welfare of the planet will deter the vast majority of folk who usually holiday abroad?  My feeling is that the concern over the planet will largely take second place to some folks desire to seek the sun.

That said, I am very cynical and may have underestimated attitudes towards the environment, especially when they affect individuals freedoms.

No your not, personally I think your pretty spot on...

[DAVIDH]

Not sure at all. It won't just be over this COP26 fortnight you here the sustainability message. It's going to be more in your face than ever before now. Even your children will be reminding you it's their future you're saving. Plus I wouldn't think it beyond the realms of possibility that the government finds it very attractive to tax aviation much more than it currently does. 

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, DAVIDH said:

Not sure at all. It won't just be over this COP26 fortnight you here the sustainability message. It's going to be more in your face than ever before now. Even your children will be reminding you it's their future you're saving. Plus I wouldn't think it beyond the realms of possibility that the government finds it very attractive to tax aviation much more than it currently does.

I hope you are right - in a lot of ways.

But we shall see . . . . 

[CambridgeCabby]

Whilst I’m fully behind the move towards reducing our carbon footprint and preserving the planet for our future population , the measures we are taking along with those of many like minded nations , will be meaningless if nations like China fail to follow “the plan” , the amount of pollution currently produced by China is monstrous .

The nations that are trying to ensure our future should also create a trade pact and purchase goods only produced in nations which are abiding by the agreed measures being taken other wise it’s pointless as all we are doing in effect is moving the pollution to another country so we can all be smug and look good .

[Heron]

As I understand it, China is doing more than most countries with regard to reducing emissions even though as CC says their polution is very high, however look at the size of the country and the population.

We in the developed West of course have more than a 100 year start on China (or india etc) on wrecking the World, and now the lesser developed countries may well say it is our turn now to catch up.

As for keeping to agreements, we, and most developed nations,  have a very poor record in that respect. 

We will all have to wait and see who achieves targets and who does not, I know where my money is.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, DAVIDH said:

Not sure at all. It won't just be over this COP26 fortnight you here the sustainability message. It's going to be more in your face than ever before now. Even your children will be reminding you it's their future you're saving. 

And that's a large part of the problem, so many I speak to like me are so fed up with the constant barrage and hype that we have switched off and are getting on with the life we have worked for, media fatigue is becoming quite a factor now, time will tell but many people are creatures of habit and will revert to the lifestyle they enjoy, there are still enough people around with disposable income that cost is not the deciding factor.

Fred 

[YnysMon]

We're doomed Captain Mannering. Seriously though, the more people that switch off from the message the more of a problem we have.

I agree about China. They do seem to be making more of an effort to than most, but with an expanding economy and middle class, as Heron mentioned, it's a challenge.

[DAVIDH]

With or without China's help, according to the latest COP 26 briefing, if all the signatory countries fulfil their promises, the earth's temperature is on target to reach 1.7c above pre-industrial levels, down from 2.6c (I think), projected before the latest round of pledges. That's not far off the 1.5c we need to keep below to stop the earth's climate reaching the point of no return. So just doing nothing because we perceive China and other countries to be "not pulling their weight" is very dangerous. 

I visited Singapore in 2019, a country very switched on to climate change and sustainability, visiting the Gardens By The Bay. Amongst the exhibits, I came across the message in the image below, which really shook me. We think we're masters of the Earth, but as you can read from the mass extinctions that have taken place in the past, over millions of years, our planet knows how to cleans itself if it's being managed badly. 

[rightsaidfred]

19 minutes ago, DAVIDH said:

With or without China's help, according to the latest COP 26 briefing, if all the signatory countries fulfil their promises, the earth's temperature is on target to reach 1.7c above pre-industrial levels, down from 2.6c (I think), projected before the latest round of pledges. That's not far off the 1.5c we need to keep below to stop the earth's climate reaching the point of no return. So just doing nothing because we perceive China and other countries to be "not pulling their weight" is very dangerous. 

I visited Singapore in 2019, a country very switched on to climate change and sustainability, visiting the Gardens By The Bay. Amongst the exhibits, I came across the message in the image below, which really shook me. We think we're masters of the Earth, but as you can read from the mass extinctions that have taken place in the past, over millions of years, our planet knows how to cleans itself if it's being managed badly. 

I think it was Charles Darwin who expounded the theory of evolution partly resulting from climate change, two examples of which are the Crocadilians that evolved from the dinosaurs and Elephants that evolved from Woolly Mammoths, we to have evolved over a much shorter period and can continue to do so, we can't stop climate change although we can mitigate some of our influence on it, the point is do we do it in a controlled manner compatible with meaningful life or just throw the baby out with the bathwater in a panic.

Fred

[grendel]

well, I dont know about the other extinction events, but the dinosaur one was caused by an outside influence, a meteor strike of massive proportions, and not by any conditions present on earth at the time, who can say about the other extinction events, thus the much simplified poster below could be seen as more alarmist than factual. I seem to recall one of the previous events was due to a supervolcano eruption blanketing the earth with dust and causing an ice age. so really not a predictable event, thus their paragraph 6 is not based upon any scientific premise, at least 2 of the previous event that we know of were not preceded by high extinction rates, making their postulation scientifically invalid.

Much the same with  alot of the climate protests, they dont seem to be based upon provable scientific fact.

science shows that at times in the past the earth has been a lot hotter than now by many degrees (and not just the odd tenth of a degree, which could be attributed to normal variations in the climate).

I wont say that mankind does not affect the climate, but to me it is sheer arrogance to believe that we can control nature, I note also that we are overdue another ice age, and that in general ice ages are proceeded by a rise in temperature, is mankind arrogent enough to think we could stop an ice age if one came? my belief is that if this happened the last thing we would be worrying about is the extinction of other animals and species, we would be fighting to survive ourselves.

Do your best to have minimal impact on your surroundings and the planet, meanwhile get on and live your life. I see no need for me to holiday abroad, and spend as much holiday as I can on the broads.

8 hours ago, DAVIDH said:

 

[Vaughan]

Thank you Grendel, for a well considered and objective post.

I have suggested before that if it were not for global warming, what we now call the Broads would still be under the glacier that created it.

[Vaughan]

There is a report in today's papers that British Airways want to recruit 4000 new staff members to be ready for next summer.

Mind you, they lost 10,000 during all the lockdowns.

[grendel]

if the number of adverts I see to come and visit Norway, Germany, etc etc are to be believed, it seems that these countries are desperate to attract the holiday makers, the issue as I see it is not visiting the countries, - its the travel to get there, here we are discussing COP26 and all countries agreeing to reduce their carbon impact, yet on the flip side they are encouraging travel to get there, and for some of these countries it will be predominantly air travel.

[grendel]

looking back through history, I wonder why the climate change proponents that show graphs of global warming always start their data in the 1950's (have you noticed that)

well historically (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been) 

 

well thats because the 1950,s was the end of a spell where the temperature dropped and it started rising again.

between the 1900's and the 1950's the temperature dropped about 0.75 degree F, so by only starting at the point where it started rising again in the 1950's the climate people are showing a false perspective as at that point they are starting 0.75 deg F below the base line, and while - yes the graph does show an alarming rise at the end, it also shows that the earth is still rising from what is termed the little ice age, but longer term, 50 million years ago, it was nearly 15 deg F hotter than now, and that was temperatures since the last great extinction, so that rise in temperature wasnt  a source of mass extinction.

Do I totally understand the science - not really, but if I can see these flaws in the climate change arguments, then so can others, if you want to get universal backing you need the scientific proof to show you are not just blowing smoke rings, not just the charts that only show the data that backs your argument.

I have a great deal of trouble agreeing with a cause if the scientific data used to present their case is incomplete or flawed.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

if the number of adverts I see to come and visit Norway, Germany, etc etc are to be believed, it seems that these countries are desperate to attract the holiday makers, the issue as I see it is not visiting the countries, - its the travel to get there, here we are discussing COP26 and all countries agreeing to reduce their carbon impact, yet on the flip side they are encouraging travel to get there, and for some of these countries it will be predominantly air travel.

Just because they are agreeing to it doesn't mean they will achieve it, being cynical how many of those signing up will still be in the position of authority that has to answer for their failure when its found the targets were unachievable in a real world.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

26 minutes ago, grendel said:

looking back through history, I wonder why the climate change proponents that show graphs of global warming always start their data in the 1950's (have you noticed that)

well historically (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been) 

 

well thats because the 1950,s was the end of a spell where the temperature dropped and it started rising again.

between the 1900's and the 1950's the temperature dropped about 0.75 degree F, so by only starting at the point where it started rising again in the 1950's the climate people are showing a false perspective as at that point they are starting 0.75 deg F below the base line, and while - yes the graph does show an alarming rise at the end, it also shows that the earth is still rising from what is termed the little ice age, but longer term, 50 million years ago, it was nearly 15 deg F hotter than now, and that was temperatures since the last great extinction, so that rise in temperature wasnt  a source of mass extinction.

Do I totally understand the science - not really, but if I can see these flaws in the climate change arguments, then so can others, if you want to get universal backing you need the scientific proof to show you are not just blowing smoke rings, not just the charts that only show the data that backs your argument.

I have a great deal of trouble agreeing with a cause if the scientific data used to present their case is incomplete or flawed.

The problem is we are only allowed to hear one voice, the media and politicians only show the popularist argument all those in the scientific world etc with alternative views are ignored at best and ostracised at worst.

Fred 

[DAVIDH]

Peter, I didn't read the poster as saying man had caused these mass extinction events. It was just pointing out that these events did happen. Clearly man couldn't have caused them as we probably wasn't around at the time. Maybe I over-stated it and to use a word of the moment "conflated" the two issues. The problem is that we have no real lived scientific data from those times and can only estimate what could happen today. There are already many countries at risk from melting ice of one form or another, in respect of flooding. Common sense tells me that if the temperature increases, more ice will melt and many areas will be flooded. Apparently, one consequence of the ice melt will be that the carbon which has been locked within for millions of years, will be released into our atmosphere, accelerating the global warming process. I believe that's why there's a figure of 1.5c, which it's considered a tipping point. 

I accept that Earth has been a lot hotter than it is now, but there was no human life to sustain at that time. What do we do, just sit back and say it's meant to be or do what we can to sustain the temperature to reasonable levels. Let's face it, most (not all) of the people who post on here, won't be around to see the effects of the Earth warming. It's the next two generations who will be affected, and it's no coincidence that it's that age group who are being most vocal. 

It was this film I saw in the Singapore auditorium which really made me think. It shows what is predicted to happen as temperatures rise between now and 2100 (for whatever reason), if no action is taken. 

 

[DAVIDH]

45 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The problem is we are only allowed to hear one voice, the media and politicians only show the popularist argument all those in the scientific world etc with alternative views are ignored at best and ostracised at worst.

Not sure this is right. Politicians have no reason to want to subjugate their citizens to the hardships that will be necessary to keep the temperature down. Why are they committing to lower CO2 when they know it will make their governments unpopular? They have no choice, because what ever is spent/experienced now, is likely to be dwarfed by what will be needed if we leave it until later, if the scientific predictions are correct. The alternative would be to do nothing and hope this warming trend reverses of it's own accord. Would you want to take that risk with the planet, and the generations to come?

[rightsaidfred]

36 minutes ago, DAVIDH said:

Not sure this is right. Politicians have no reason to want to subjugate their citizens to the hardships that will be necessary to keep the temperature down. Why are they committing to lower CO2 when they know it will make their governments unpopular? They have no choice, because what ever is spent/experienced now, is likely to be dwarfed by what will be needed if we leave it until later, if the scientific predictions are correct. The alternative would be to do nothing and hope this warming trend reverses of it's own accord. Would you want to take that risk with the planet, and the generations to come?

No problem with lowering CO2 or any other improvements if done responsibly with practical measures, it's the headlong rush to pacify the popularist  movements that all politicians are prone to that's the issue, he who shouts loudest is not always right or the wisest.

Fred

[grendel]

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

The problem is we are only allowed to hear one voice, the media and politicians only show the popularist argument all those in the scientific world etc with alternative views are ignored at best and ostracised at worst.

Fred 

its an issue i have been following for years, back when it used to be called global warming, i was discussing it with a friend, and we were saying then, that it should really be global climate change, because some places might actually get colder (eg the uk if we lose the warming of the gulf stream, we are actually at the same latitude as canada and siberia.)

[grendel]

dont get me wrong, i think we should be acting to make our stay on this planet as sustainable and impact free as we can, but my gripe is with the misuse of statistics and data when used to support the cause, and unfortunately both the governments and the activists are equally to blame when it comes to this.

the problem comes when someone can refute their figures, then their whole argument fails. and thats when they get ignored and nothing is the net result.

similarly one catastrophic event such as a super volcano or meteor strike, could reverse the current trend massively and precipitate us into an ice age.

 

[Mouldy]

2 hours ago, DAVIDH said:

Not sure this is right. Politicians have no reason to want to subjugate their citizens to the hardships that will be necessary to keep the temperature down. Why are they committing to lower CO2 when they know it will make their governments unpopular? They have no choice, because what ever is spent/experienced now, is likely to be dwarfed by what will be needed if we leave it until later, if the scientific predictions are correct. The alternative would be to do nothing and hope this warming trend reverses of it's own accord. Would you want to take that risk with the planet, and the generations to come?

I think we’ve discussed some of the implications of knee jerk reactions to the climate crisis on here at length before.  The move to electric vehicles, without planning how to dispose of the batteries at the end of their life, sourcing the essential elements required to make them, making sure we have the capacity to generate the required amount of electricity in the first place, having a viable, affordable means to heat our homes when gas is no longer an option and so on.

So often, to placate the protesters, we put the cart before the horse.  Not only that, but how many of us are prepared to ‘do our bit’ to help?  How many of the folk now shouting loudest about global warming would be willing to give up their cars and foreign holidays?  Various industries will complain bitterly if their activities are curtailed in the interests of the planet.  Witness the recent protestations of the travel sector, who wanted foreign travel opened up as soon as the pandemic appeared to be under control.

There will need to be a major change of attitudes before things change.

[andyg]

I can't remember the name of it, but I was watching a documentary on TV some time ago about planet earth. Basically they were saying the earth is a living entity and like everything else it will die in time. So as much as I believe we as a race should do everything possible to mitigate climate change are we just prolonging the inevitable. Should we be investing more resources into space exploration etc. I don't know and I guess I won't be around to find out. I do worry about my grand childrens futures maybe I'm just to pessimistic lol...