Things are going Greeattt! (COP26)

[Nimos]

Do you blame them?

People are pushing underdeveloped technology to replace technology that is far superior and far more reliable.

First develop green technology to be on par or surpass present fossil fuel first. Then I think people can talk about replacing it.

Im honestly not trying to blame anyone, no one is willing to or probably capable of just agreeing to whatever.

I must say I have little time for this lazy cynicism. It gets us nowhere, apart from making us inclined to give up entirely.

At least a lot of senior politicians are trying. It is only to be expected that a lot of self-interest will come to the surface in the negotiations. And people start by asking for things they don't finally get. That is what negotiating is like, as anyone who has done it will be aware. Don't forget also that the reason why many of these politicians are not moving as fast as many of us would like is because of us, their voters! It is we, the voters, who are reluctant to change our lifestyles and give up some of our habitual luxuries. (Just look at the post from @Twilight Hue, for example: there are lots of voters who still think, complacently, they can sit back and wait for the alternatives to all be superior to what they have today, before they need to do anything.) As for central government, that can only embark on costly initiatives by raising taxes, which we have to pay. Part of the deal will also involve giving poor countries money to compensate them from not taking the fossil fuel road to prosperity that the developed world has done. How is that going to go down with your average Trumpie?

This thing is going to cost. That is the tough truth and it is not surprising that a lot of them shy away from confronting it head on.

So what we need to do is push and encourage our politicians (carrot and stick) to give them confidence that they have a lot of their voters behind them if they go for faster change.

I think most voters actually support these things, even a person that believe that its all made up and climate change is just a conspiracy, must still be able to see the reason or benefit of simply taking care of the planet and the lifeforms on it, and like the fact that there is not plastic all over the place etc.

And I don't even think the politicians are poor or don't care, I honestly believe that it is due to how the system works in general. There are way to many people and organizations, corporations etc. that has a huge interest in these things due to how their businesses operate. So the reason the politicians have a hard time is not because of their voters, but because of these companies supporting them and they obviously do this in order to get something in return. The system is not designed to be intelligent or to solve problems, but to benefit certain groups and their interests and it is definitely not designed to work globally. Each country have their own interests, as it has always been and they are trying to get the best possible deal out of it.

I do agree with you that people are also to blame, our lifestyles are insane.

If we need 1.7 Earth as of now, it doesn't exactly require a higher education to figure out that it is not going to work out in the long run. So having a global system based around consumption is outright crazy. The amount of money spend on telling people what they need, people constantly buying new phones and other gadgets, that you hardly repair anything anymore, the toaster broke? Just throw it in the bin and buy a new. The quality stuff, is way to expensive for the average person, forcing them to buy cheap **** that breaks.

But again, how are we going to solve it? If things doesn't break as much as they do, people will buy less and companies won't make as much money and jobs will be lost. Its a self destructive system on a planet with limited resources. Whenever there is a economic crisis everyone is encourage to just spend more money on crap, to force the train to keep moving.

What Earth need is a completely new way of doing economics, which takes nature and the needs of all people into consideration, rather than the few. But I have no idea how that is going to happen, because no one is willing or maybe even able to to pull the break. Even if we manage to solve or reduce the climate problem, we still face an economical disaster in regards to resources, especially when China and more of the poorest countries starts to also demand what everyone else has.

 

[Nimos]

Climat change is a big lie!

Reading your whole post, im not really sure where you get your information from and who these scientists you refer to is.

I remember when I was in my 20's in the 80's how the "Scientists" carried on about the "Ozone depletion" and how the Earth will eventually have super ultraviolet radiation, and how we will succumb by drought and cancer in less than 20 years.
Well, it still did not happen.

This was caused by certain products containing chlorofluorocarbons, such as freon and other products containing these. A global agreement were made in 1987 to ban it.

An international ban on ozone-depleting chemicals preserved the ozone layer and prevented a significant increase in global warming. A 1987 worldwide ban on ozone-depleting chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) averted a dangerous rise in the level of ultraviolet radiation (UV) reaching the Earth's surface.

Today, the use of CFCs is outlawed by 197 countries around the world and scientists concur that the ozone layer is slowly recovering as a result.

Actually, it was now discovered that volcanos can do more harm than all man made chemicals can, as well as heal the atmosphere.
“If volcanic halogens, which are commonly present in large quantities in volcanic eruptions, were to partition substantially into the stratosphere — in any greenhouse gas emission scenario, at any point in the future — it would potentially cause severe losses of stratospheric ozone,” said Klobas.

It helps reading all of it... from the same article:

The Earth’s stratosphere is still recovering from the historic release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Even though CFCs were phased out by the Montreal Protocol 30 years ago, levels of chlorine-containing molecules in the atmosphere are still elevated.

Researchers have long known that when concentrations of chlorine from human-produced CFCs are high, ozone depletion will result following a volcanic eruption. When levels of chlorine from CFCs are low, volcanic eruptions can actually increase the thickness of the ozone layer.

“These eruptions are highly unusual events but the possibility does exist, as evidenced in the historical record,” said Wilmouth.

Then the big lie about global warming, and that we would all die before 2030.
Measurements found the Earth actually cooled.

Have no clue what this is based on, global warming is not something that is based on measurements over 1 or 2 years, but over a long period of time, where did you get this information?

Climate change is most commonly measured using the average surface temperature of the planet. Year-on-year, natural fluctuations can be seen on top of this long-term warming. For this reason, scientists traditionally use a period of at least 30 years to identify a genuine climate trend.

I remember how "Scientists" said in 1991 that if Sadam Hussain were to follow through in setting all the oill wells alight, the Earth will be covered in a cloud of black smoke, how the Northern hemisphere will go into a freezing cold summer, and all our crops will fail, resulting in famminne. How the Southern hemmisphere will have scorching summers and winters, drying all the cultivations and how in 3 years only a few people will survive.
Well, that was a lie too. Satelite pictures showed small straks of smoke over Iraq and Iran. Scientists then realised that the Earth heales itself.

Just because you see small fires doesn't mean that they don't emit a lot of dangerous gasses as a result.

When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat in our atmosphere, making them the primary contributors to global warming and climate change.

An estimated one to 1.5 billion barrels of oil were released into the environment. After most burned, 25 to 40 million barrels ended up spread across the desert and 11 million barrels in the Persian Gulf, according to a 2012 paper published in Remote Sensing of Environment. For comparison, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill into the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to have released nearly 5 million barrels of oil. Kuwait's landscape has recovered somewhat. Clean up efforts have removed 21 million barrels of oil from the desert, but an estimated 1 million barrels still remain.

The Sea levels rose by 175 meters over the last 3 000 years (Blue hole Light house reef) due to all these snow melting and filling the oceans.

What? the sea levels rose 175 meter in just 3000 years? Do you have a source for this, that seems highly unlikely.

They are making up stories, and try to become "Super Stars, such as Tony Fauchi, Miko Kako, Niel de grase Tyson and all these highly educated story tellers.

But the stuff above has nothing to do with these guys, so what do they matter?

forinstance how we must take the vaccine, but remaining silent about natural immunity.

Who say that you should stay silent about it? Sweden tried for herd immunity or natural immunity and the rest of the Scandinavian countries didn't, this is how that turned out.

For Herd immunity to work, you need people to be infected and if death counts are important, then that is probably not the way to go, when there is a vaccine.

 

[sun rise]

First develop green technology to be on par or surpass present fossil fuel first.

That's been done already. You are as wrong about it not being better as you were about the Amish using coal. This is no different than those who said "get a horse" when cars were first developed. I prefer the future rather than stick to buggy whips.

Get A Horse! America’s Skepticism Toward the First Automobiles | The Saturday Evening Post

 

[exchemist]

I was expressing a viewpoint, not trying to be "helpful." My viewpoint is capitalism>greed>global warming.

You have it the wrong way round. Greed is a lot more fundamental than capitalism, and global warming is not a result of capitalism, it is a result of economic progress.

 

[exchemist]

Im honestly not trying to blame anyone, no one is willing to or probably capable of just agreeing to whatever.


I think most voters actually support these things, even a person that believe that its all made up and climate change is just a conspiracy, must still be able to see the reason or benefit of simply taking care of the planet and the lifeforms on it, and like the fact that there is not plastic all over the place etc.

And I don't even think the politicians are poor or don't care, I honestly believe that it is due to how the system works in general. There are way to many people and organizations, corporations etc. that has a huge interest in these things due to how their businesses operate. So the reason the politicians have a hard time is not because of their voters, but because of these companies supporting them and they obviously do this in order to get something in return. The system is not designed to be intelligent or to solve problems, but to benefit certain groups and their interests and it is definitely not designed to work globally. Each country have their own interests, as it has always been and they are trying to get the best possible deal out of it.

I do agree with you that people are also to blame, our lifestyles are insane.
View attachment 57427

If we need 1.7 Earth as of now, it doesn't exactly require a higher education to figure out that it is not going to work out in the long run. So having a global system based around consumption is outright crazy. The amount of money spend on telling people what they need, people constantly buying new phones and other gadgets, that you hardly repair anything anymore, the toaster broke? Just throw it in the bin and buy a new. The quality stuff, is way to expensive for the average person, forcing them to buy cheap **** that breaks.

But again, how are we going to solve it? If things doesn't break as much as they do, people will buy less and companies won't make as much money and jobs will be lost. Its a self destructive system on a planet with limited resources. Whenever there is a economic crisis everyone is encourage to just spend more money on crap, to force the train to keep moving.

What Earth need is a completely new way of doing economics, which takes nature and the needs of all people into consideration, rather than the few. But I have no idea how that is going to happen, because no one is willing or maybe even able to to pull the break. Even if we manage to solve or reduce the climate problem, we still face an economical disaster in regards to resources, especially when China and more of the poorest countries starts to also demand what everyone else has.

A lot of truth in what you say, but I am less pessimistic - possibly because I don't live in the US (though I did for a couple of years). It is very intractable, but one can live a civilised life with lower energy intensity and we do not need to rely on fossil fuel.

I think it is critical that we separate out the climate change imperative from other environmental issues. In my career I've come across people who insist on lumping all the problems together and then throwing their hands up in despair. That is a useless approach. One has to separate issues out, prioritise them and tackle them separately. Right now we must get a grip on the climate. The other environmental issues can be worked on in parallel, but out of the climate spotlight. So yes, there will be pollution from the mines for battery materials and so on, but we'll have to come back to that, not use it as a reason to delay renewable powergen and electric vehicles.

In fact, though, the throwaway culture you identify is being recognised as part of the climate challenge and there are now signs of businesses starting to respond to it. I think the new culture of recycling has potential to be a big driver of culture change in this respect. When a toaster breaks now, you need to put it out for recycling or take it to the rubbish dump to put in the appropriate skip. That makes you think about what it is made of, how its materials can be re-used and, not least, what a nuisance it is to have to dispose of the damned thing. So next time you want one that lasts longer. It's slow, I agree, but the change from 30 years ago is considerable - at least where I am.

Anyway I think we ought, not exactly give our politicians a break , but at least understand that they are caught between two millstones, because changing the attitudes of society, and telling people they can't have things they had before, is not easy. At least, not in a democracy. One could argue that our throwaway society is the result of democracy. Cats vote for tin openers............

 

[Nimos]

A lot of truth in what you say, but I am less pessimistic - possibly because I don't live in the US (though I did for a couple of years). It is very intractable, but one can live a civilised life with lower energy intensity and we do not need to rely on fossil fuel.

Im not pointing fingers at the US, because Denmark from where im from is not much better, we are at 4.3 Earths. And I agree with you that a lot of things could be done with fossil fuel or at least through better usage of it.

I think it is critical that we separate out the climate change imperative from other environmental issues. In my career I've come across people who insist on lumping all the problems together and then throwing their hands up in despair. That is a useless approach. One has to separate issues out, prioritise them and tackle them separately. Right now we must get a grip on the climate. The other environmental issues can be worked on in parallel, but out of the climate spotlight. So yes, there will be pollution from the mines for battery materials and so on, but we'll have to come back to that, not use it as a reason to delay renewable powergen and electric vehicles.

The issue is that it always seems to come back to the economical system, because that is what drives everything. I personally don't believe that simply replacing the carpark with electrical cars and chargers is going to solve it. It might look good on the short terms, but personally I think hydrogen is a better option, it runs like gasoline cars, meaning you can refill them like you do now and not having to wait an hour or so for it. Obviously a lot of money and infrastructure has to be put into this as well. But you can make hydrogen from renewable energy, but you can from what I understand greatly reduce the amount of batteries that you need to run an electric car.

In fact, though, the throwaway culture you identify is being recognised as part of the climate challenge and there are now signs of businesses starting to respond to it. I think the new culture of recycling has potential to be a big driver of culture change in this respect. When a toaster breaks now, you need to put it out for recycling or take it to the rubbish dump to put in the appropriate skip. That makes you think about what it is made of, how its materials can be re-used and, not least, what a nuisance it is to have to dispose of the damned thing. So next time you want one that lasts longer. It's slow, I agree, but the change from 30 years ago is considerable - at least where I am.

Recycling is really good I agree and is definitely a step in the right direction. And completely agree 30 years ago, I don't think recycling were even a word

Anyway I think we ought, not exactly give our politicians a break , but at least understand that they are caught between two millstones, because changing the attitudes of society, and telling people they can't have things they had before, is not easy. At least, not in a democracy. One could argue that our throwaway society is the result of democracy. Cats vote for tin openers............

I do agree that a cultural change is probably needed, if these estimates are correct, that we need some many Earths to keep things going, then clearly we have a long way to go.