Cop 26 And The Climate

[DAVIDH]

57 minutes ago, andyg said:

I can't remember the name of it, but I was watching a documentary on TV some time ago about planet earth

It was on Universe, the new series with Prof Brian Cox. This from NASA:

How long will the Sun shine?

If our Sun is four and a half billion years old, how much longer will it shine? Stars like our Sun burn for about nine or 10 billion years. So our Sun is about halfway through its life. But don’t worry. It still has about 5,000,000,000—five billion—years to go.

The sun is what makes our planet inhabitable. Any closer to the sun and things would become molten. Any further away and it would be too cold to exist, and all water would be locked away, frozen. He (Brian Cox) estimates it's taken 5 billion years of this uninterrupted state for intelligent life to develop here on Earth. There are billions of stars out there (I'm told), but the vast majority are in a state of flux, with unsteady orbits. Because of that, he believes the odds are against finding intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy. You would need a steady orbit, just the right distance from a sun, and that must not change for up to 5 billion years for life to get a foothold. He says, just imagine that we have become one of the few outposts of intelligent life in the Universe, and we let it slip away by our own mis-management. Read more here:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/oct/19/earths-demise-could-rid-galaxy-of-meaning-warns-brian-cox-ahead-of-cop26

[RS2021]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

its an issue

Love reading all the COP26/climate change stuff and... the Richardsons stuff. Is it time to split this thread?

[SwanR]

Definitely IMHO given how diverse these topics are. 

[ExSurveyor]

Grendel is on the case but it is quite a task.

[grendel]

excuse please while I scream and pull my hair out.

[grendel]

right I think thats it, apologies if any posts have moved that should have stayed.

[rightsaidfred]

Thanks grendel it makes sense to get thinks back on track.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

Scream and pull your hair out?

That’ll take a while then !  

Griff

[grendel]

I found this nicely balanced article on the subject of warm temperatures

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

at least it covers the topic scientifically, with some explanations.

[DAVIDH]

Illuminating explanation there Peter. Interesting that a slight "wobble" in Earth's orbit can cause so much devastation too. It could be that the current warming is more to do with factors we have not created, though the effect seems to be the same. Perhaps Earth's temperature will right itself eventually, though with timescales of thousands of years, the damage will already have been done. 

My view is that whatever the reason for climate warming, we have a means of reducing it, starting with the steps being taken at COP 26. At least the nations of the world acknowledge there is a problem now. I also think the steps we are going to need to take, will usher in a new era where the last 50 years will seem like a golden age. People have become relatively well off. Jetting off on multiple holidays each year had become the norm before Covid. Food prices were kept low due (in part) to improvements in agriculture. Technology was gobbled up by the extra discretional spend in most (not all) peoples pockets, and eating out was an affordable leisure activity.

Unless new tech comes along to make the new world we will be living in cheaper, I can see money getting tighter across the board. We've heard about heat pumps, and the UK decision to phase out new gas boilers by 2035. The only way i can see this happening is if a surcharge is put on our power bills (much like it is to pay for loft insulation and cavity wall insulation), so that everyone can have access to a grant at the time of their boiler replacement. I think the government will find it irresistible to not apply taxes to our flights. Currently, we do not charge VAT on aviation fuel. Can't see that lasting, The government has already adopted "The polluter pays" principle by introducing an Ultra APD tax to long haul flights of 5,500 miles or more in the last Budget As an aside, the treasury has surely noted that the amounts flowing into the coffers from hospitality, has increased as a result of people being unable to jet off and spend their cash abroad, over the last two years. As businesses across the world, have to pay more to be more sustainable, these costs will be added to the goods we buy. It all points to a smaller disposable spend. 

[rightsaidfred]

Sorry to say it David but you have more faith in COP 26 than I do human nature being what it is, the poor take up of smart meters the small number of houses fitting solar panels are just two examples the majority are still buying petrol and diesel cars myself included, some of my neighbours couldn't wait for the opportunity to fly abroad, while some governments are making a fair amount of noise and setting time limits only dictatorships will force it through, the ballot box still has a lot of sway and while the majority may make some modifications I doubt they will give up a hard earned lifestyle.

Fred

[grendel]

yes, I can see holidays being priced out of the realms of the average man again, much as they were in the past, where only the rich could afford to holiday in style, and a luxury tax being applied.

If only we could be certain that any measures applied under the COP26 agreement went towards the action against climate change and not just straight into the coffers of the already rich.

I work in the industry, and i have a distrust over the use smart meters could be put to, so I understand why there is a low takeup, also down to the fact that each electricity provider has a different brand of smart meter and has to install their brand to be capable of reading it, thus limiting your ability to go with the best deal out there, unless you have a south facing roof solar is at best marginal in this country in winter, mine faces east south east, so at best I get half a day of solar, or I need to fit twice the panels to catch the solar in the afternoons on the other face of the roof.

[rightsaidfred]

13 minutes ago, grendel said:

yes, I can see holidays being priced out of the realms of the average man again, much as they were in the past, where only the rich could afford to holiday in style, and a luxury tax being applied.

If only we could be certain that any measures applied under the COP26 agreement went towards the action against climate change and not just straight into the coffers of the already rich.

Tourism is a major part of many economies and provides substantial employment so personally I don't see to much likely hood of it being taxed out of existence for enough people to make a difference, added to which  you only have to look at how much plenty are prepared to pay for top end boats on the broads, for all the hardships suffered by many there is still a lot of disposable income around amongst large enough numbers of people who wouldn't consider themselves rich.

Fred

[PaulN]

Should COP 26 have been held in the UK? We generate a little less than 1% of global carbon emissions. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to hold it in China or Russia whose leaders chose not to attend as they represent the countries that could contribute most, or Brazil whose leader didn't attend either, yet their deforestation could also be worthy of discussion. I think the whole process of this event has been lip service from the world.

Looking at my own situation, I would like to install solar panels but he cost would jeopardise being able to continue running my boat on the broads, as we live on our pensions. I have recently bought a car and having wanted to purchase an electric one, I found the cost too high and I wouldn't be able to drive to our boat if the outside temperature was 5 degrees with heating on or 30 degrees with air conditioning on and perhaps a hold up on the A 12. I therefore had to rule that out and bought another diesel which qualifies exemption in the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone. So still a way to go on technology.

The UK is really not a big offender, yet we seem to be taking the global situation upon ourselves, with our children being brainwashed that we can make the difference that will save the world. I can remember when we had coal fires throughout the winter, yet in the 50's my mother managed to build an igloo in the back garden for myself and sister to play in, and riding our toboggan was a regular annual event. 

My point being that unless the booming economies that rely on coat to produce their energy and oil for their plastic exported products, there is little that we here can achieve. Or just maybe, the planet will sort itself out as it always does. 

Final controversial statement: The world population that has boomed so much is probably the biggest source of carbon emission.

[vanessan]

25 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I think the whole process of this event has been lip service from the world.

Or as Miss Thunberg would say - ‘blah, blah, blah’. 

I’m beginning to think that climate change should rank with politics and religion as a subject best avoided as we all seem to have our own ideas as to how to tackle it. Indeed some think it doesn’t exist and it’s just the planet going on its own sweet way as it always has done. We bought a new car recently too but, like Paul, found the all-electric ones silly prices (and not yet fully catered for) so went for a full hybrid instead. We do what we can to recycle, don an extra layer rather than turning the heating up but we won’t be told what we should or shouldn’t eat which seems to be the most recent ‘guilt trip’ to send people on. Think I’d better stop right there!!
 

[rightsaidfred]

40 minutes ago, PaulN said:

Should COP 26 have been held in the UK? We generate a little less than 1% of global carbon emissions. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to hold it in China or Russia whose leaders chose not to attend as they represent the countries that could contribute most, or Brazil whose leader didn't attend either, yet their deforestation could also be worthy of discussion. I think the whole process of this event has been lip service from the world.

Looking at my own situation, I would like to install solar panels but he cost would jeopardise being able to continue running my boat on the broads, as we live on our pensions. I have recently bought a car and having wanted to purchase an electric one, I found the cost too high and I wouldn't be able to drive to our boat if the outside temperature was 5 degrees with heating on or 30 degrees with air conditioning on and perhaps a hold up on the A 12. I therefore had to 

Final controversial statement: The world population that has boomed so much is probably the biggest source of carbon emission.

Very well put and as for your last comment that is the biggest problem, we can cull animal species that become to large, we should stop eating meat so we can reduce the number  of farmed animals but yet we must sustain populations of people where and when nature tells us they are unsustainable and not just in the 3rd world.

Fred

[Bikertov]

41 minutes ago, PaulN said:

We generate a little less than 1% of global carbon emissions.

I personally think this is a massive point

We are practically going to bankrupt ourselves as a country by being 'world leaders' in throwing out still working boilers, cars etc, in order to have new 'clean' items ... that all use electricity that we can't make all by ourselves so will still be generated by coal and gas overseas, and producing un-needed carbon emissions in the manufacture of those new items before their time, as well as using rare resources for the electronics and batteries (that are not easy to dispose of).

... all to be able to strut on a world stage and say 'look at us, aren't we stupid good and clever.

Am I missing something ?

50 minutes ago, PaulN said:

Final controversial statement: The world population that has boomed so much is probably the biggest source of carbon emission.

And I do unfortunately agree with this point too.

More people = more energy and resources used, and more carbon emissions.