The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 3,801 to 3,823 of 3823

  1. Post
    Yeah there’s basically no way we will stay under 1.5, and 2 is unlikely because we aren’t seeing drastic action. So yeah, 3-4 degrees is looking likely.

  2. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    And because they have large amounts of power, consumers can drive change. If more people move to using electricity companies that only use renewables, what will happen? Companies that don’t use renewables will change. If people move to eating less red meat will that increase beef farm growth? No, it will force change.
    Sorry, who has the power to consume here?

  3. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    No, that’s just what you think they’re thinking. Pretty much every organisation is saying “replace fossil fuels”, you just don’t bother to look into it.
    They're saying replace fossil fuels? Well isn't that nice. But it's still just another variation on the ban brigade.

    When someone comes out with a workable solution that's not just shifting stuff around under the carpet then I will be impressed.

  4. Post
    Lol

  5. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    They're saying replace fossil fuels? Well isn't that nice. But it's still just another variation on the ban brigade.

    When someone comes out with a workable solution that's not just shifting stuff around under the carpet then I will be impressed.
    I think you need a different thread, this topic obviously isn’t something you’re interested in. If you don’t even know what the people you are criticising are saying then you’re just wasting everyone’s time, including your own.

  6. Post
    What does Net Zero Emissions mean, and how do we get there? Some good info here.

    https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/09/wha...tions-answered

  7. Post
    Explainer on Carbon Budgets (for the UK), made this quite understandable.
    The starting point is the global carbon budget calculated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the total amount of carbon that can be emitted into the atmosphere from now until the end of this century. The most recent estimate of a global budget that would offer a 66% chance of limiting climate warming to within 1.5C above the pre-industrial average is 420 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

    Working from here to a carbon budget for each country is both a technical and an ethical question. Using the UK as a detailed example, a simple proportional allocation would give the UK a budget of approximately 2.9 billion tonnes. But given the UK’s historical responsibility for carbon in the atmosphere and the undeniable need for development in the poorest countries in the world, there is a very strong argument that the UK should adopt a fair carbon budget somewhat lower than this. So, for example, if the poorer countries in the world were to have an allowable carbon budget just one-third higher than the richer countries, this would lead to a fair carbon budget for the UK of around 2.5 billion tonnes.
    So yeah, western nations need to drastically cut greenhouse gases to make up for what they have already done since the start of the Industrial Revolution and allow the developing nations some leeway to develop.

  8. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    What does Net Zero Emissions mean, and how do we get there? Some good info here.

    https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/09/wha...tions-answered
    Soon as I see the "eat less meat" vegan flag it turns me off reading it.

  9. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Soon as I see the "eat less meat" vegan flag it turns me off reading it.
    Yeah, it’s really aimed at people who might want to do something.

  10. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Yeah, it’s really aimed at people who might want to do something.
    What about people who want to eat more meat?

  11. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    What about people who want to eat more meat?
    They should probably read this specifically, the second half of number 1.

  12. Post
    Some people just want to watch the world burn.

  13. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Yeah, it’s really aimed at people who might want to do something.
    True, I'm more outcomes focused and less about virtue signalling.

  14. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    True, I'm more outcomes focused and less about virtue signalling.
    It’s funny how the people who throw out the term virtue signalling are signalling their virtues the most

  15. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    It’s funny how the people who throw out the term virtue signalling are signalling their virtues the most
    I see what you mean.

  16. Post
    Greta Thunberg says she has found the solution to CO2 - trees. Who would have thought such wisdom from a teenager

  17. Post
    I'm wondering why we haven't heard more about renewable methanol production https://www.carbonrecycling.is/george-olah

    I assume there is some reason - cost / yield etc etc - would seem like a easier time transitioning the vehicle fleet then electric and without all the depleting battery issues.

  18. Post
    Well worth a read of sobering chances to get this done in time. link
    “It’d be great if we could stop at two degrees,” Gates said. “Unless there are huge surprises on scientific advances, I just don’t see it happening.” As for the U.N.’s stated goal of 1.5 degrees? “We’re not in that universe, period,”
    “To make that happen, you are talking about billions and billions of tons of everything. We are mining now more than 7 billion tons of coal. So you want to lower the coal consumption by half, you have to cut down close to 4 billion tons of coal. You have to get rid of more than 2 billion tons of oil. These are transformations on a billion-ton scale globally. They cannot be done by next Monday.”
    This last point is what concerns me the most
    Here is why everyone is so pessimistic: Emissions are at an all-time high, not moving too slowly in the right direction but still moving in the wrong direction
    Until we start going in the right direction with emissions, I remain pessimistic we can achieve what needs to be done.

    EDIT: Scientists’ messages to world leaders

    What more needs to be said to start plans
    Last edited by KiwiTT; Yesterday at 4:36 pm.

  19. Post
    The fundamental problem is that people will only change when there is a really viable positive alternative (when I say positive I mean something that is really desirable by consumers).

    EVs are great example, they are little more than a feel-good solution. They don't address the true requirements as a replacement vehicle platform. Their overall performance and capacity is lacking, people are not that interested - imagine what will happen when they have to start paying for RUCs?

    At the same time our public transport infrastructure is spiraling down the dunny in a sludge of WTF are the politicians doing. Wellington PT is now so unreliable that people are reverting back to cars.

    Here is a fundamental example. Last year I started working near the Wellington railway station. I decided to give the train a go. First problem I encountered was the car park was full relatively early (no walking and bus are not options). Good news though! The car park was being expanded. So I took my car into work while I eagerly awaited the new car park to be finished, construction start in March. Guess what... it's still not finished, in fact work has ground to a halt with a drainage issue with an expected completion date of october - which is bollocks as work has been stopped for 6 months and nothing else is happening.

    We need a political leader who is going to start getting things done and spend some money. We need investment in research, maybe my hydrogen idea was bollocks - but I don't see any innovation ... just stagnation and a few wind farms being dropped here and there which will not make much of a dent in our generation requirements.

    NZ can make negligible impact to global GHG emissions. I applaud the government acting to clean up pollution. If this country is going to make a difference it will not be throwing killing our own economy for the sake of a symbolic emissions drop that nobody will notice. We will only make a difference if we do something bold and innovative.

    (FWIW, just saying, I have no idea which political party could do this... at the moment they all have their fingers up their buttholes while they gaze at their navels).

  20. Post
    Sold the last petrol only car I will ever own today. Feels good man.

  21. Post
    I'm just shocked that he doesn't know a single ****ing thing about EVs.

  22. Post
    How your council candidates think about climate change - https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/201...oting-climate/

  23. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    The fundamental problem is that people will only change when there is a really viable positive alternative (when I say positive I mean something that is really desirable by consumers).

    EVs are great example, they are little more than a feel-good solution. They don't address the true requirements as a replacement vehicle platform. Their overall performance and capacity is lacking, people are not that interested - imagine what will happen when they have to start paying for RUCs?

    At the same time our public transport infrastructure is spiraling down the dunny in a sludge of WTF are the politicians doing. Wellington PT is now so unreliable that people are reverting back to cars.

    Here is a fundamental example. Last year I started working near the Wellington railway station. I decided to give the train a go. First problem I encountered was the car park was full relatively early (no walking and bus are not options). Good news though! The car park was being expanded. So I took my car into work while I eagerly awaited the new car park to be finished, construction start in March. Guess what... it's still not finished, in fact work has ground to a halt with a drainage issue with an expected completion date of october - which is bollocks as work has been stopped for 6 months and nothing else is happening.

    We need a political leader who is going to start getting things done and spend some money. We need investment in research, maybe my hydrogen idea was bollocks - but I don't see any innovation ... just stagnation and a few wind farms being dropped here and there which will not make much of a dent in our generation requirements.

    NZ can make negligible impact to global GHG emissions. I applaud the government acting to clean up pollution. If this country is going to make a difference it will not be throwing killing our own economy for the sake of a symbolic emissions drop that nobody will notice. We will only make a difference if we do something bold and innovative.

    (FWIW, just saying, I have no idea which political party could do this... at the moment they all have their fingers up their buttholes while they gaze at their navels).
    Lol have you heard of Tesla? Performance and capacity lacking? Vulcan please