Climate change doom

[JasonPalmer]

Expert says 1.5 target not achievable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66256101

ever get the feeling we doomed unless someone creates a breakthrough in carbon capture ?

[pastoralguy]

Well, we’ve been well warned…

[smittims]

I don't like to depress anyone but I've always felt that we will fail. Not enough people care about climate change to do something about it. HS2, gas-guzzling 4x4's, power tools out in back gardens, it all contributes and accumulates .

[oddoneout]

I don't like to depress anyone but I've always felt that we will fail. Not enough people care about climate change to do something about it. HS2, gas-guzzling 4x4's, power tools out in back gardens, it all contributes and accumulates .

I'm afraid I have succumbed to pessimism on this front now; I continue to do my bit as best I can since it's what I've done all my life but it seems futile.
It's not as if awareness is new - the matter has been in the public domain so to speak for decades. 50 years ago in my Geography A level class one afternoon we were debating whether the accumulation of CO2 in the upper atmosphere would cause the planet to cool or heat. The political response in those countries best placed to take action was to ignore the matter and all the other associated environmental concerns that were being raised at that time.

[Bryn]

I'm afraid I have succumbed to pessimism on this front now; I continue to do my bit as best I can since it's what I've done all my life but it seems futile.
It's not as if awareness is new - the matter has been in the public domain so to speak for decades. 50 years ago in my Geography A level class one afternoon we were debating whether the accumulation of CO2 in the upper atmosphere would cause the planet to cool or heat. The political response in those countries best placed to take action was to ignore the matter and all the other associated environmental concerns that were being raised at that time.

Indeed, it was over 50 years ago that i first took note of the fact that the mechanism of global warming, the "greenhouse effect" was described back in the 19th Century. Yesterday's voters in Uxbridge and South Ruislip lent further evidence of the hill we need to climb in order to survive as a species.

[Orphical]

Try seeking out some alternative views. I can highly recommend The Daily Sceptic and The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
And enjoy life. We are not about to fry to a crisp and nor will we any time soon.
i also find a dort of No BBC News and no Guardian newspaper helps immensely.

[Kernow Malc]

I see a head being pushed firmly in the sand.....

[Jazzrook]

Orphical won't want to read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/21/rampant-heatwaves-threaten-food-security-of-entire-planet-scientists-warn

JR

[Serial_Apologist]

I would much rather have RichardB explaining these things than me in my usual over-rambling way, but, ever since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution secured it, capitalism and environmental sustainability have been inherently at loggerheads. In its unevenly proceeding manner of operation capitalism at its most "successful" produces more and more obsolescent products to serve populations which never realised they needed them, but are persuaded to acquire because without they will be unable to function in society and manufacturers will not be able to stay ahead of the curve through investing in innovations. Previously peoples had lived more in harmony with the natural course of events while restricted in mobility, what today would be considered reasonable health and lifespan, and at the behest of ruling orders at whose command they could be sent to war without say in this or any other matter. Governments sometimes try to do this or that to mitigate the worst social and environmental consequences but someone somewhere else will always be in the business of undercutting, and this is seen by apologists for capitalism who disseminate misinformation and promulgate division when the very system that privileges them fails the rest of us as humanity's principle goal.

[Joseph K]

I would much rather have RichardB explaining these things than me in my usual over-rambling way, but, ever since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution secured it, capitalism and environmental sustainability have been inherently at loggerheads. In its unevenly proceeding manner of operation capitalism at its most "successful" produces more and more obsolescent products to serve populations which never realised they needed them, but are persuaded to acquire because without they will be unable to function in society and manufacturers will not be able to stay ahead of the curve through investing in innovations. Previously peoples had lived more in harmony with the natural course of events while restricted in mobility, what today would be considered reasonable health and lifespan, and at the behest of ruling orders at whose command they could be sent to war without say in this or any other matter. Governments sometimes try to do this or that to mitigate the worst social and environmental consequences but someone somewhere else will always be in the business of undercutting, and this is seen by apologists for capitalism who disseminate misinformation and promulgate division when the very system that privileges them fails the rest of us as humanity's principle goal.

Well put, and not a word too many I thought.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who didn't vote Labour in the last two general elections forfeits the right to express any anxiety over the climate emergency. We had the opportunity to tackle it in a way that reflects its great urgency and the necessity of transforming society in a way that was truly cognisant of the challenges we face. Now we have a leader of the opposition who hates tree huggers and who only promises to tinker round the edges; as Caroline Lucas points out, winning slowly is the same as losing - With the climate in peril, winning slowly is the same as losing. How can Starmer settle for that? | Caroline Lucas | The Guardian

[oddoneout]

Orphical won't want to read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/21/rampant-heatwaves-threaten-food-security-of-entire-planet-scientists-warn

JR

Well no - it's in the Guardian...
Increasingly I wish we could ditch the yes it is/no it isn't element (ie man made or "natural" climate variation) and concentrate on the fact that whatever the causes there is a huge global problem to deal with somehow. Reducing fossil fuel use dependence is necessary because it's a finite resource, finding ways to cope with extreme weather is necessary because it affects human life - mortality, food supplies, habitability etc. After all, I think even climate change sceptics can accept that continuing to pollute water, air and soil is inimical to quality of life and needs to be addressed.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Carbon capture is a long way off being a practical technology. The pessimistic approach “we are all doomed so there’s no point doing anything “ is wrong. We already have the tech (boring stuff like house insulation , battery storage , solar panels and wind turbines ) to make significant progress to net zero without bankrupting people. Indeed battery and solar tech is advancing so rapidly quite a few energy experts (even including fossil fuel enthusiasts) believe ultra cheap low carbon energy will be available decades before carbon capture becomes practical .
A few lifestyle changes - eating less meat , using trains rather than planes for holidays make a big difference . If I were government I wouldn’t be wasting money on heat pumps but trying to improve urban public transport and cutting down the carbon emissions from big polluters like agriculture. During lockdown I cut my annual Carbon account by 20 per cent by travelling less, not staying in hotels and eating out , and driving less. It wasn’t that bad.

[Retune]

Try seeking out some alternative views. I can highly recommend The Daily Sceptic and The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

You can seek out alternative views, and even alternative facts, from places like this, but why expose yourself to utter nonsense? 'The Daily Sceptic' is Toby Young's one-stop shop for all the conspiracy theories favoured by the more unhinged readers of The Spectator and The Daily Mail, especially when it comes to global heating and Covid vaccines. 'The Global Warming Policy Foundation' is one of those disinformation 'think tanks' operating out of 55 Tufton St, funded by a trail of dark money that plausibly leads back to the fossil fuel industry and the Koch family. All you'll be reading are cherry-picked factoids, bad-faith arguments and downright nonsense from scientific cranks (sorry, 'independent researchers'), politically-motivated columnists, and cynical hacks who have sold their souls to the oil companies. There are good reasons why there is a very strong scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, no matter what the (well-funded and organised) bullshitters would have you believe. These reasons come from rigorous, intellectually honest analyses of the now very compelling and extremely worrying data, by the real experts.

[teamsaint]

You can seek out alternative views, and even alternative facts, from places like this, but why expose yourself to utter nonsense? 'The Daily Sceptic' is Toby Young's one-stop shop for all the conspiracy theories favoured by the more unhinged readers of The Spectator and The Daily Mail, especially when it comes to global heating and Covid vaccines. 'The Global Warming Policy Foundation' is one of those disinformation 'think tanks' operating out of 55 Tufton St, funded by a trail of dark money that plausibly leads back to the fossil fuel industry and the Koch family. All you'll be reading are cherry-picked factoids, bad-faith arguments and downright nonsense from scientific cranks (sorry, 'independent researchers'), politically-motivated columnists, and cynical hacks who have sold their souls to the oil companies. There are good reasons why there is a very strong scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, no matter what the (well-funded and organised) bullshitters would have you believe. These reasons come from rigorous, intellectually honest analyses of the now very compelling and extremely worrying data, by the real experts.

The UKHSA data on covid vaccine efficacy ( the “ best “ we have) , was fiddled beyond practical use , esp re two elements, the total unvaccinated population and mis- categorisation after vaccination. It is a great pity that whoever it was made the decisions saw fit to first fiddle the data then decided to stop the reporting.

As for “ Independent researchers” there is every reason, historically, to take some sceptical standpoints.

re covid, I did some of my “research “ on the well known conspiracy site the BHF, whose calculator told me in spring 2020 that I had a 1 in 2000 chance of hospitalisation if I contracted covid, and 1 in 8000 of death. I took what I needed to from that . And that wasn’t what the govt would have wanted me to.

There is some terrible misinformation out there on social media, but lets not pretend that the govt and other interests , including people in academia and commercial scientific research , are always whiter than white .Everybody cherry picks facts to suit their argument, naturally.

[gradus]

Re global warning, surely our global fate hangs on the policies and actions of the US, China, India etc
Our commitments are to reductions by 2030 but what effect will they have on the global problem largely arising from the policies and actions of those whose eyes are fixed, if fixed at all, on 2035 or even 2050?
Is the 'leadership' we are giving of any real significance? It feels like the cause is lost.