The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 3,651 to 3,669 of 3669

  1. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    or simply whinge about environmentalists.
    I whinge because most of the actions we are taking are useless. In particular we are taking aim out our economy with hits that hurt the economy but only virtue signal in terms of actually resolving climate change. The only thing the greens know how to do is hate and ban, they are the most useless bunch of people when it comes to actually resolving issues.

  2. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    I whinge because most of the actions we are taking are useless. In particular we are taking aim out our economy with hits that hurt the economy but only virtue signal in terms of actually resolving climate change. The only thing the greens know how to do is hate and ban, they are the most useless bunch of people when it comes to actually resolving issues.
    Who, in your opinion, would not be useless and would resolve issues?

  3. Post
    "The elites and the BBC and the conventional media - has simply not grasped the enormity of what's happening."

    @ExtinctionR co-founder Roger Hallam has just been on BBC Hardtalk programme and told the host that six billion lives are at risk over the climate crisis. He said “you’re not listening, that’s what the science predicts”.

    Not one peer reviewed paper has said anything of the sort. It’s disappointing that people like him are taking things to the extremes and claiming that science is backing them up on fringe issues. It’s not. These popular movements get everyone like Greenpeace behind them because they can fundraise off the back of it. It’s fringe stuff like this that will make people stop listening unfortunately.

  4. Post
    Just watched that too, this morning. I do agree that 6 billion lives are at risk, but maybe not of dying though, but certainly chaotic times. I read an article recently that already 1/4 of the population is already in what is called "water stress". So it is not hard to surmise that if we continued as "business-as-usual", 6 billion lives could be affected in the 50-70 year timetable he mentioned. He specifically said he would not be around, but the children will be, and his concern is for these future generations.

    In addition, the IPCC has directly said we need to turn things around within the next decade, i.e. we need to producing less and trending down CO2 output at the end of those 10 years to have any hope of averting the coming crises. As for his 2025 target, I believe it is much easier for western countries to start trending downwards by then, because of our financial resources to transition faster to greener energy sources. So we need to see this 2025 target as a date we are producing less CO2 than the previous years. However, it needs the political will to get that started, hence why they are trying to get all governments to start declaring a climate emergency and then develop plans thereafter to put us on track to reduce CO2.

    Reading some of XR posts, they have stated that 2025 is an 'ideal' target, and may not be achieved, but western nations really need to start acting on plans now. The NZ example of encouragement to buy electric vehicles and penalise polluting vehicles is one of those many many steps we need to be making.

    The advantage of western nations doing this development, is we have the resources to troubleshoot solutions and then proven options can be passed on to the poorer nations for their own implementations as well.
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 18th August 2019 at 11:39 am.

  5. Post
    6 Billion lives are the reason we're all at risk.

    We haven't behaved in any different fundamental way than lemmings.

    But they fortunately have predators and starvation to prune their populations periodically, whereas we're basically burning the house down.

  6. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    But they fortunately have predators and starvation to prune their populations periodically, whereas we're basically burning the house down.
    Yep.



    If she can see it, why cant the rest of the world.

  7. Post
    Nice little video here explaining the North Atlantic ‘cold spot’


  8. Post
    I think we still have dozens of unknown feedbacks yet to be discovered.

  9. Post

  10. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Not one peer reviewed paper has said anything of the sort.
    Another issue with climate change is that it's so hard to lay everything out so cohesively. How do you even begin to describe and predict the changes that might occur? We are effectively altering our entire ecosystem, so it effects practically everything.

    There may be no papers to support Roger's claim here, but there are a number of climate scientists, whose personal predictions I've read, are a lot more dire.

  11. Post
    It’s fine for him to say that he and some others think it, but it’s not fine for him to go on the BBC and say “the science says this” when it doesn’t. It undermines the scientific work when an interviewer asks an actual scientist and they say something else. It just leads to confusion amongst the public at a time when we all need to be moving forward together.

    But yeah, it’s incredibly complex when you get down to what changes will occurs

  12. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    It’s fine for him to say that he and some others think it, but it’s not fine for him to go on the BBC and say “the science says this” when it doesn’t. It undermines the scientific work when an interviewer asks an actual scientist and they say something else. It just leads to confusion amongst the public at a time when we all need to be moving forward together.

    But yeah, it’s incredibly complex when you get down to what changes will occurs
    100% agree. It's just tough, especially as time goes on and things get worse. I know personally how difficult it can be to get through to people, and unfortunately emotional arguments sometimes blurt out. The butcher told my old man the other day that the planet wasn't worth saving, when he asked for his meat to not be wrapped with a plastic liner. Some people just don't give 2 f**ks.

  13. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    But yeah, it’s incredibly complex when you get down to what changes will occurs
    I think we need to expect the unexpected


  14. Post
    I couldn't help but think of this thread when I came across this article.

    .First, let's accept climate change is happening and will have major negative impacts on New Zealand. Second, let's also accept that even if New Zealand did absolutely everything possible to reduce emissions to zero, it would still happen, i.e. our impact on climate change is negligible. Third, reducing our emissions will come with a high financial cost. Fourth, the cost of dealing with the negative impacts of climate change (rising seas etc), will also come at a high financial cost. Based on the above, would it not be smarter to focus our money and energy on preparing New Zealand for a world where climate change is a reality, rather than quixotically trying to avert the unavoidable?
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/1151...re-for-impacts

    Vulcan wrote:
    I whinge because most of the actions we are taking are useless.
    You winge, because ultimately you're a naysayer. Picking holes allows you to feel intelligent, without having the actual intelligence or balls to identify and address very serious problems. You're that guy procrastinating and claiming conditions are sub optimal while other people are improvising and getting shit done.

    Perfection is always the enemy of success and perseverance will always be a better solution than perfection.

  15. Post
    bradc wrote:
    You winge, because ultimately you're a naysayer. Picking holes allows you to feel intelligent, without having the actual intelligence or balls to identify and address very serious problems. You're that guy procrastinating and claiming conditions are sub optimal while other people are improvising and getting shit done.
    I like to think we are being a realist not a naysayer, because we know that despite all our best efforts here in New Zealand and elsewhere the effects of climate change are going to get worse.

    Why?
    1) Third world countries populations continue to grow fast (albeit birthrates are slowing somewhat)
    2) These new populations will aspire to western levels of lifestyle (we have it good why shouldnt they)
    3) The cleaner energy sources need to be cheaper than fossil fuels (they are not, e.g. electric cars)

    As for the point about procrastinating; we are not. We do try to be a good custodian, by doing the reduce, re-use, repair, recycle, but ultimately it is not enough at the global level to make the changes. Not to mention, the lack of options for actual recyling, beyond collections of stuff. The recycling stuff is piling up globally.

    We can say to the world look at us, sheesh even Norway and Sweden are already showing the world a better way and are ahead of us in lots of ways. So it is not for showing a good example. However going carbon neutral is still a good goal, but that is only part of what we need to do.

    Reading the books, reports, posts, etc., what we really need to do is totally change our systems. Hence movements like Extinction Rebellion, because as the IPCC says we need to have in place plans that are already making our CO2 output to be going down within a decade, not just slowing the growth.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in effect says emission cuts of 45 per cent or more over the next decade might just avert catastrophic change
    e.g. if we output 7,700kg CO2 per capita, that needs to be 4,000 CO2 per capita, in ten years. That is a huge reduction!!!

    Most western countries are already reducing their CO2 per capita, according to a quick glance at this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita. So you could say the West is at least trying to reduce CO2 output. However, I do note that New Zealand has not been falling as fast as other western nations, but we are already quite low by western standards - 2014 figures: New Zealand 7,700kg versus Norway 9,300kg, so we are quite good in fact. The problem is CO2 per capita is rising in a lot of other 3rd world countries, and slowing this rise should be our primary efforts. e.g. funding clean energy research, production, and uses, that 3rd world countries can use instead.

    I just dont think the world will be able to change at the rate and scale to reduce CO2 output enough to avert the climate change effects. That is not a naysayer, but a realist.
    Last edited by KiwiTT; Yesterday at 8:03 am.

  16. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I like to think we are being a realist not a naysayer, because we know that despite all our best efforts here in New Zealand and elsewhere the effects of climate change are going to get worse.
    I don't think this is what Brad was alluding to. Rather that Vulcan only ever had negative things to say about climate activism. Sure, he might be right in pointing out flaws, but if all you ever do is criticise, you're still a naysayer.

    3) The cleaner energy sources need to be cheaper than fossil fuels (they are not, e.g. electric cars)
    Electric cars are not an energy source. Solar is becoming the cheapest source of electricity.

  17. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    Electric cars are not an energy source. Solar is becoming the cheapest source of electricity.
    Is it? I looked at the expense of adding batteries and solar panels (both of which need to be maintained or replaced over time as they age) and it is certainly not cheap.

    As for electric cars as a power source. You may want to check out what they are doing using them as batteries for the grid in some parts of the world when they are not in use.

  18. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Is it? I looked at the expense of adding batteries and solar panels (both of which need to be maintained or replaced over time as they age) and it is certainly not cheap.

    As for electric cars as a power source. You may want to check out what they are doing using them as batteries for the grid in some parts of the world when they are not in use.
    I mean on a large industrial scale, solar is fast becoming, if not the, cheapest source of energy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikesco.../#6c884caa66ce

  19. Post
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...egin-to-close/

    And Now the Really Big Coal Plants Begin to Close
    Old, small plants were the early retirees, but several of the biggest U.S. coal burners—and CO2 emitters—will be shuttered by year’s end