The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
(4 votes)
Results 2,726 to 2,750 of 3547

  1. Post
    So what did this latest conference achieve?

  2. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So what did this latest conference achieve?
    It showed the US is still ignorant and blind to anything but business interests.

  3. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So what did this latest conference achieve?
    From what I can gather they agreed to the rulebook that they would use when the agreement goes into force in 2020. Yet a few things were kicked down the road until COP25 next year. And the latest IPCC report was merely "noted" and not "welcomed" thanks to the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait (basically oil exporters).

    - - - Updated - - -

    gneiss wrote:
    It showed the US is still ignorant and blind to anything but business interests.
    Though apparently the US pushed hardest when it came to transparency rules.

  4. Post
    So more fluffing around.

    NZ really needs to look at its future self resilience, we need to invest heavily in local green tech. Tariff imports that aren't green/enviro-friendly-labour-friendly. We also need to invest in self sufficiency (repair and manufacture capabilities).

  5. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So what did this latest conference achieve?
    The only thing that's going to get us on the right path is global revolution, it's that simple.

  6. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So more fluffing around.

    NZ really needs to look at its future self resilience, we need to invest heavily in local green tech. Tariff imports that aren't green/enviro-friendly-labour-friendly. We also need to invest in self sufficiency (repair and manufacture capabilities).
    Do you really expect 200 politicians from different countries to agree on anything? I bet you wouldn’t even get an agreement on Hitler being a P.O.S.

  7. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    The only thing that's going to get us on the right path is global revolution, it's that simple.
    And it pretty much has to happen right now.

  8. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So more fluffing around.

    NZ really needs to look at its future self resilience, we need to invest heavily in local green tech. Tariff imports that aren't green/enviro-friendly-labour-friendly. We also need to invest in self sufficiency (repair and manufacture capabilities).
    A good start would be focus efforts on recycling. We do **** all with recycling in NZ if any.
    Splitting of waste properly and facilities within NZ that can take them and recycle efficiently.
    Education from a young age on how to recycle. Splitting waste into more categories for recycling.
    Something like what Japan does. Its going to be decades to educate the population and get everyone to follow new standards of recycling.
    Although I'm actually very doubtful the population of NZ can ever do recycling properly...

    Is there anyone with policies around recycling in NZ? If there has been I haven't seen any and its surprising Greens dont push it more. All I see is waste reduction policies.

  9. Post
    Reading this, I cant help but wonder that we are really just entering into a new era, and we all need to find ways to adapt to this change that is happening over time. This means systems that have worked for the last 100 years may need to change to accommodate these earth changes. These may even include what we once considered normal, like nation states.

    Given the number of failed states we now have and many breaking even modern nations are under strains, like Italy, Greece, UK, Spain, it may be time we develop new ways of managing / governing people's lives. i.e. the days of nations and nationalities are numbered.

    And it has to be said, 'nations' are only really a relatively new concept. However, what that form of governance will be, I am not so sure as it seems a possible option "The EU", has its own problems and independence voices from that can now be heard even in Germany and France.

    So if it is not a nation grouping and we dont want to go back to the old empires, as that wont work either (past revolutions put paid to that idea), what could it be. Do we all become little independent principalities or do we all form some kind of collective democratic global government.

    Whatever develops over the coming century, the coming turmoils are going to be very brutal and survival of the fittest (richest and smartest), will be well in force, if not already in action.

  10. Post
    been reading and hearing more of the skeptics to try get more info , this pop up in my youtube


  11. Post
    We need to stop politicians burning through fossil fuels on jaunts to talk about climate change.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...climate-change

  12. Post
    What a f**king waste of money.

    NZ needs to cut our emissions as far as fiscally makes sense, but we need to stop kidding ourselves. There is no f**king way in the world NZ is going to contribute to stopping climate change. Our emissions are even a rounding error in global stats, we are a rounding error of a rounding error.

    If NZ stopped all Co2 and greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, nobody would f**king notice. We would make no different to global emissions.

    I'm not against less emissions as far as NZ being cleaner goes. But we need to be practical. We need to recognize that the top polluters are doing SFA to drop their emissions - and the world is f**ked.

    So if the science is right about our future climate, we need to drop the stupid shit and start preparing for what we need to do. For example councils should be telling homeowners on at risk foreshores it's time to move. They should be budgeting to buy that land back. We should be developing capability within the country to make ourselves resilient to the potential changes in the world coming up, we should be looking to become more self sufficient should things turn to crap.

    But oh no, we're off to a conference to see how we can trap more cow farts.

  13. Post
    Bloody wrote:
    been reading and hearing more of the skeptics to try get more info , this pop up in my youtube
    potholer54 on YouTube (Peter Hadfield, a scientific journalist) has often debunked Monckton's claims (his channel is probably the best I've ever seen at debunking skeptic arguments in a very ELI5 friendly way). Monckton is a complete quack. Skeptical science even has a page dedicated to him. He's an eccentric character for sure.

    Sorry, but there is no get out of jail card with climate change. It's real. It's happening faster than expected. And it's going to be bad.

  14. Post
    Like I have said many times, climate change is just one of the many things coming our way. And agreeing with Vulcan, councils need to start preparing to mitigate and raise budgets accordingly and start moving vulnerable land owners.

    In other news - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12189330 - oh @#$%

  15. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    What a f**king waste of money.

    NZ needs to cut our emissions as far as fiscally makes sense, but we need to stop kidding ourselves. There is no f**king way in the world NZ is going to contribute to stopping climate change. Our emissions are even a rounding error in global stats, we are a rounding error of a rounding error.

    If NZ stopped all Co2 and greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, nobody would f**king notice. We would make no different to global emissions.

    I'm not against less emissions as far as NZ being cleaner goes. But we need to be practical. We need to recognize that the top polluters are doing SFA to drop their emissions - and the world is f**ked.

    So if the science is right about our future climate, we need to drop the stupid shit and start preparing for what we need to do. For example councils should be telling homeowners on at risk foreshores it's time to move. They should be budgeting to buy that land back. We should be developing capability within the country to make ourselves resilient to the potential changes in the world coming up, we should be looking to become more self sufficient should things turn to crap.

    But oh no, we're off to a conference to see how we can trap more cow farts.
    The test on whether or not to do something shouldn't be dictated on whether other people do it too.

  16. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    potholer54 on YouTube (Peter Hadfield, a scientific journalist) has often debunked Monckton's claims (his channel is probably the best I've ever seen at debunking skeptic arguments in a very ELI5 friendly way). Monckton is a complete quack. Skeptical science even has a page dedicated to him. He's an eccentric character for sure.

    Sorry, but there is no get out of jail card with climate change. It's real. It's happening faster than expected. And it's going to be bad.

    cool, watching his video debunk now

  17. Post
    bradc wrote:
    The test on whether or not to do something shouldn't be dictated on whether other people do it too.
    I dont think what he is saying is that, only that our meagre resources of a small poor western country could be better re-directed to more relevant mitigation methods, by local and national governments. As well as, by us consuming and polluting less

  18. Post
    Oh jesus, did you post Monckton seriously?

  19. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I dont think what he is saying is that, only that our meagre resources of a small poor western country could be better re-directed to more relevant mitigation methods, by local and national governments. As well as, by us consuming and polluting less
    His post reads as if rather than take an active role in reducing emissions, we should de-emphasize that, and focus on making the shiniest ambulance as possible at the bottom of the cliff.

    The actual reality is that governments around the world are gravitating towards the reduction of emissions, albeit at varying speeds and intensity. You can very clearly see this going on, it would be smarter to lead the way there instead of putting your head in the sand or trying to build a bunch of sea walls - not just from an environmental perspective, but also economically. The demand for more emissions friendly products from emissions friendly companies and countries is only going to increase, and be of greater value.

  20. Post
    I know this is probably a bit extreme, but to me it seems like the easiest and only way we can change, and that's limiting the population. I know there are unintended issues with the likes of China's one child policy, but given the extra resource each human demands, it seems the only realistic solution...given how selfish we all are, I can't see it happening though. Thoughts?

  21. Post
    Well, either less people or an adjustment in how people live. If every person on the planet lived like the average American, we'd need 4 Earth's.

    To me, restricting population seems pointless, as populations inevitably age as they advance. That and it'd be a lot smarter to properly address consumption as a focus...

  22. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Well, either less people or an adjustment in how people live. If every person on the planet lived like the average American, we'd need 4 Earth's.

    To me, restricting population seems pointless, as populations inevitably age as they advance. That and it'd be a lot smarter to properly address consumption as a focus...
    So...

    When people in Africa, India etc, reach a first world standard of living their birthrates will decline and the population of the World will stabilize?

  23. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Like I have said many times, climate change is just one of the many things coming our way. And agreeing with Vulcan, councils need to start preparing to mitigate and raise budgets accordingly and start moving vulnerable land owners.

    In other news - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12189330 - oh @#$%
    If you think I'm paying to save some dude's million dollar holiday house that he built right on the beach at Omaha, you've got another think coming.

  24. Post
    Zarkov wrote:
    So...

    When people in Africa, India etc, reach a first world standard of living their birthrates will decline and the population of the World will stabilize?
    Possibly. But that mainly means it'll stop increasing, and you've got a lot more consumers than we see now. China's population is aging, but they're expected to generate a four fold increase in air travellers over the next decade.

  25. Post
    By the time Africa reaches first world status, the first world will look like Mad Max.