Whats the motivation for going net zero?
- Thread starter SilliamWhale
- Start date
By dying and being buried, if half the population were gone the problem would be solved
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Especially if it was biased towards high income countries (who's citizens have way higher climate impact).
Yes there is a market but it's a con, its already being exposed, I thought it would take longer but obviously a few journalists havent read the script properly it will be the next ppi/diesel emissions scandal
For anyone who has paid attention to the science for the last 4 decades its clear we need to stop burning fossil fuels. Whether that's called renewable, sustainability, net zero or decarbonisation... Don't care. Bottom line is fossil carbon needs to stop being dumped into the atmosphere at the rate we have been.
Why? To try and leave a planet in a fit state for my children and grandchildren.
Why? To try and leave a planet in a fit state for my children and grandchildren.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
I don't think you're wrong at all - it's a large part of the overarching impoverishment project to increase inequality.
"Going without" doesn't sell new things as well.
This is meant to be catchy and appeal to the world's best overconsumers, so that they feel good about buying more crap and flying more miles, "doing their bit for climate change"
Blissfully unaware that a living thing like our climate should be changing all the time, climate stasis is what should be feared, as it signals entropy if things stay the same.
( Because they knoweth not how to observe, they watcheth the news to be told what to think )
Ah well, that's me off to the naughty step!
What about the last 5000 or so years?
Surely they didn't build all those pyramids in the middle of a desert back then . It must have been green and rich around them to support all the workers and make it possible .
It's natural evolution and only nutters would think they can change anything over the whole world . Unfortunately we're run by the biggest shower of them and agree the goal seems to be to bankrupt the country
I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Over 5000 years we've seen some parts of the world become harder to live in due to naturally occurring climate change. Then over the last 200 years we've manage to spread that effect globally.
Surely this is clearly a bad idea and something we should stop doing.
Lazy Sod
Member
- Location
- Warminster Wiltshire
It seems to me that the main reason for the likes of the Green Party, and many others, is to show the rest of the world that we are leading the way and setting an example. It matters not to the afore mentioned folk that we are impoverishing ourselves in taking this attitude and the big players like China and India take no notice anyway.
Last edited:
serf
Member
- Location
- warwickshire
Dam really
,you best get on the blower sharpish to the Aviation Authority and get all these planes grounded pronto that are aimlessly flying about just to give folk a day or two out ......
essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
How is it harder to live? Plants thrive with increasing co2
SilliamWhale
Member
I'm always extremely weary of someone who says "the science"....
Wary or weary?
Since WWII we've pretty definitively pushed up average global temperature by a degree. That doesn't really impact us yet but the effects are being noticed. If that that gets up to 2 or 3 degrees then large parts of the world will start to become uninhabitable. That's not scaremongering, it's just objective fact. The UK will go from temperate, to Mediterranean (nice) to, eventually, arid (not nice) unless the ship the slowed and turned around. It starts here by reducing how much carbon we pump into the atmosphere.
Probably won't affect anyone over the age of 50. Won't affect people who are 30 much. But their children and certainly their grandchildren will be negatively effected.
If I had the power to do that then I would. No good bleating 'but what about them doing polluting'. Take responsibility, make decisions that will improve the situation, vote for those who can bring about this change. Not much else an individual can do, is there?Dam really
you best get on the blower sharpish to the Aviation Authority and get all these planes grounded pronto that are aimlessly flying about just to give folk a day or two out ......
SilliamWhale
Member
Actually, both!!
There's a big issue with science reporting in the media being woeful. Trying to create drama and controversy when there isn't much, the concept of uncertainty and the distinction between a theory, a hypothesis, a model, a prediction and soothsaying. For me personally, I wouldn't read the likes of the BBC or the Guardian (let alone GB News/Telegraph) for climate related news. But then, my degree in engineering and years of following the scientific press means I probably come at the news from a different perspective anyway.
It is wearing but unfortunately it is important so people aren't going to shut up about the role of fossil fuels in damaging the atmosphere. Nor should they.
SilliamWhale
Member
I think there is also a difference between accepting that fossil fuels may very well have an impact on the climate and that it is prudent to start to find alternative energy sources (if there was that much concern then why hasn't nuclear been prioritised?) and castrophising the situation with talk of "boiling oceans" (Al Gore at Davos) and you claiming the planet will be unliveable for your children and grandchildren.
I'd take the more pragmatic view on it all. There is no impending "tipping point" where everything goes wrong.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
So you advocate for uncontrolled, libertarianism with unlimited population expansion?
No species can sustain exponential population growth indefinitely whilst contained to a finite enclosure with finite resources.... Population limits can either be imposed by controlled wars, controlled pandemics or I hope rather more subtle, less destructive policies... failing that eventually population control will be imposed naturally by uncontrolled wars, uncontrolled pandemics and uncontrolled people..... As a Westerner my offspring are far more likely to have a rosy future in a world that is at least partially managed than one in which all things are left to nature. There is a sweet spot to be found between uncontrolled libertarianism in which everyone does exactly what they please and totalitanism in which such freedom is held only by a select few.I would actually put myself on the more realistic end of the spectrum so I clearly didn't express myself well. I say that it's a risk as some inhabited places in the middle east and India are already (at times of the year in certain weather conditions) only safely habitable through the use of air conditioning. The relatively conservative (small 'c') IPCC say the same thing.
So I don't think it is catastrophizing to say that is happening.
I am hopeful that the changes over the last decade are, overall, going in the right direction. For things to get really bad in the UK would mean we continue to increase carbon dioxide levels a lot more and I don't think that will happen. And I agree, we probably won't face a tipping point and fossil fuel use will probably peak and plateau, if not fall, within my lifetime.
SilliamWhale
Member
Where is the evidence that those in the Middle East are seriously concerned? Even if it does get hotter they have air con and will have to adapt their working habits. Its what technology does and always has done.
Bjorn Lomborg heavily quotes that weather related deaths have gone down massively in the past few years and more people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.
In the UK I can hardly even think of a negative we are so well placed to benefit