Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread
- Thread starter ZAGGIN
- 3,647 comments
- 225,169 views
- 3,694
- South Australia
As an Australian, this conference has forced our PM (finally) to push for climate change action in his coalition government. Something he has wilfully ignored for his entire political career.
He was terrified of international ridicule if he couldn’t go to Glasgow with a net zero plan in place. He tried ducking the conference all together but copped it from the queen, a prince and most Australians.
If the mythical plan is real, and if it causes a net zero target for our country, which he certainly wouldn’t have put in place for a Skype call, than it will cancel out every gram emitted for the conference.
He was terrified of international ridicule if he couldn’t go to Glasgow with a net zero plan in place. He tried ducking the conference all together but copped it from the queen, a prince and most Australians.
If the mythical plan is real, and if it causes a net zero target for our country, which he certainly wouldn’t have put in place for a Skype call, than it will cancel out every gram emitted for the conference.
- 3,694
- South Australia
That’s a question on the lips of not just the federal opposition, the media and other world leaders but every Australian that actually believes in climate change.
My opinion? Probably not. My belief? This guy will be outed at the next election and it will be dealt with by someone who actually takes it seriously. If that means job losses in the coal industry, so be it.
Last edited:
- 11,272
- Sweden
- eran0004
Sure, they could make a greater effort to reduce the emissions of COP, but how would an online conference even work? Would 20,000 people sit in front of a screen for two weeks struggling with bad connections, audio glitches, low resolution video and no eye contact with anyone? 90% of them would just give up after half a day.
And I don’t see why COP would need to stick to higher standards just because the topic is climate change. Society isn’t sustainable and COP is a product of society. It’s odd to say that we shouldn’t be allowed to discuss climate change until the world has solved those very problems. As for shipping The Beast over to UK, it’s far worse for the climate to keep a copy of The Beast on standby in each country that POTUS might want to visit, because it takes quite a long time before emissions from the fuel outweighs the emissions from building the car. Even more so for a heavily reinforced car.
As for flying in general, I don’t believe in stopping flights across the oceans, because there are no good alternatives for that. What we need to reduce is the amount of regional flights, because they are less efficient than long distance flights and there are good alternatives than can be used instead.
It’s also extremely odd to start with “if climate change is real”, because if you do believe it to be true there are far bigger concerns than COP. And if you don’t believe it to be true, then why should COP reduce its emissions?
And I don’t see why COP would need to stick to higher standards just because the topic is climate change. Society isn’t sustainable and COP is a product of society. It’s odd to say that we shouldn’t be allowed to discuss climate change until the world has solved those very problems. As for shipping The Beast over to UK, it’s far worse for the climate to keep a copy of The Beast on standby in each country that POTUS might want to visit, because it takes quite a long time before emissions from the fuel outweighs the emissions from building the car. Even more so for a heavily reinforced car.
As for flying in general, I don’t believe in stopping flights across the oceans, because there are no good alternatives for that. What we need to reduce is the amount of regional flights, because they are less efficient than long distance flights and there are good alternatives than can be used instead.
It’s also extremely odd to start with “if climate change is real”, because if you do believe it to be true there are far bigger concerns than COP. And if you don’t believe it to be true, then why should COP reduce its emissions?
Last edited:
- 29,354
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Apparently Barack Obama visited my work today, and he was in the building right next to where I (sometimes) work, but I wasn't there today because I had to go to a different university to do my experiments 
There was quite a crowd and I doubt I would have hung about just to see him anyway.
-
Meanwhile, Pakistan's entry for this week's "You had one job..." award...
There was quite a crowd and I doubt I would have hung about just to see him anyway.
-
Meanwhile, Pakistan's entry for this week's "You had one job..." award...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Perhaps disingenuously, Saudi Aramco has warned of social unrest if fossil fuels are ditched too quickly.
www.ft.com
Saudi Aramco warns of ‘social unrest’ if fossil fuels ditched too quickly
Chief executive Amin Nasser says leaders must still invest in oil and gas to stave off soaring inflation
- 2,865
- Australia
I had a realisation that I'm not sure whether or not would be perceived as "well.... duh" by many. To be honest though, I'd never come across it prior.
I had long-dismissed Australia's (where I live) quest to reduce emissions as pure political play and nothing to do with actually attempting to address climate change. I thought that it was ridiculous to think that even getting to net zero emissions would make any notable difference on a world scale.... and I still believe that. Australia's emissions are comparatively so low that it could completely cease to exist and that would merely be a "drop in the ocean" change.
What I hadn't considered is what is done "in our name". We might not be high level emitters in this country but we certainly are high level consumers. So much of what we buy is not made in Australia, meaning that our emissions levels are low but our "emissions responsibility" is high (made worse by the shipping required). In terms of impact on the environment we may as well be considered one of the worst emitters in the world.
To me it suggests all the more that the emissions talk is just political play. If our government was concerned with actually making a difference they'd be focussing on things like say minimum standards for the durability and/or longevity of relevance for products (it seems to be very common knowledge that printers are used almost like semi-disposable products, for example). I'm sure that there's many measures that could be put in place to ensure that we have much less of a constant stream of products being made, bought and tossed.
With all of that said, this is not a commentary on whether or not the government should be doing anything in regards to climate change - more that if they're going to do anything it should be things that would actually make sense. I see it as a chance for some unity between climate change "believers" and climate change skeptics. Surely the former would want effective measures and the latter would want to avoid a "double whammy" of ineffective measures attempting to address an issue they don't even believe is an issue.
* I'm not that knowledgeable on this topic and reserve the right to feel like an idiot if I'm way off with this
I had long-dismissed Australia's (where I live) quest to reduce emissions as pure political play and nothing to do with actually attempting to address climate change. I thought that it was ridiculous to think that even getting to net zero emissions would make any notable difference on a world scale.... and I still believe that. Australia's emissions are comparatively so low that it could completely cease to exist and that would merely be a "drop in the ocean" change.
What I hadn't considered is what is done "in our name". We might not be high level emitters in this country but we certainly are high level consumers. So much of what we buy is not made in Australia, meaning that our emissions levels are low but our "emissions responsibility" is high (made worse by the shipping required). In terms of impact on the environment we may as well be considered one of the worst emitters in the world.
To me it suggests all the more that the emissions talk is just political play. If our government was concerned with actually making a difference they'd be focussing on things like say minimum standards for the durability and/or longevity of relevance for products (it seems to be very common knowledge that printers are used almost like semi-disposable products, for example). I'm sure that there's many measures that could be put in place to ensure that we have much less of a constant stream of products being made, bought and tossed.
With all of that said, this is not a commentary on whether or not the government should be doing anything in regards to climate change - more that if they're going to do anything it should be things that would actually make sense. I see it as a chance for some unity between climate change "believers" and climate change skeptics. Surely the former would want effective measures and the latter would want to avoid a "double whammy" of ineffective measures attempting to address an issue they don't even believe is an issue.
* I'm not that knowledgeable on this topic and reserve the right to feel like an idiot if I'm way off with this
- 11,879
- Marin County
Both of the above could be solved with more nuclear power.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
France, I think, has the majority of its electricity produced by nuclear power plants. But they depend upon ample cooling. If, in a prolonged drought, the water in the rivers runs too low, the plants will have to be throttled down or even shut off. Otherwise yes. Nuclear will undoubtedly be a needed part of our energy plan for decades to come. Too bad they seem to take many years to license and construct.
- 11,879
- Marin County
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,287
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Pakistan floods leave wrecked lives, half million in camps
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Nearly a half million people crowded into camps after losing their homes in widespread flooding and the climate minister warned Monday that Pakistan is on the “front line” of the world's climate crisis after unprecedented monsoon rains wracked the country since mid-June, killing...
apnews.com
Danoff
Premium
- 34,023
- Mile High City
Does she give any actual reasons for her statements? She just talks, a lot, counter to actual facts. Solar and wind are the two cheapest sources of electricity in existence. Ok maybe not in northern Canada or something, but that's not exactly the location she's talking about. Solar especially has some real tangible reasons for use over something like fossil fuels for a developing region - like the fact that solar requires virtually zero infrastructure to make work - something these nations usually lack. And not depending on infrastructure, it is then more resilient to weather. So we have technology which is portable, requires zero infrastructure, and is the cheapest form of electricity the world has ever seen, and we want to use fossil fuels because... because... well she doesn't actually give a reason.
She lists Bangledesh, but Bangledesh seems to be using solar to great effect "[t]he nation now has the largest off-grid energy program in the world":
Solar Power in Developing Countries - The Borgen Project
borgenproject.org
Last edited:
- 3,098
- Finland
- thematic604
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.577 (follow the money?)
- 29,354
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Recently uncovered internal documents from ExxonMobil show that their own research, conducted between 1977 and 2003, not only predicted global warming, but has turned out to be astonishingly accurate. In spite of this however, ExxonMobil's public communications and actions in the last couple of decades has systematically cast doubt on predictions of negative climate outcomes, including their own which they didn't make public.
The article in Science is normally pay-walled but is open-access for the next couple of weeks.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,476
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Ah yes, a toxic dust bowl that will coat the entire Salt Lake Valley and all because farmers want to grow alfalfa in the middle of the desert.
www.cnn.com
Scientists fear a Great Toxic Dustbowl could soon emerge from the Great Salt Lake | CNN
Utah's Great Salt Lake is vanishing. As the water disappears, the lakebed is exposed and so is the potential for a health disaster.
- 11,879
- Marin County
Same thing is happening in the imperial valley (Salton Sea) for largely the same reasons. The worst part is that alfalfa is not even used for human consumption or even used domestically. 70% of it is sold to China and Japan to feed cows and pigs - 40% of the Colorado river water is used for this purpose.Ah yes, a toxic dust bowl that will coat the entire Salt Lake Valley and all because farmers want to grow alfalfa in the middle of the desert.
Scientists fear a Great Toxic Dustbowl could soon emerge from the Great Salt Lake | CNN
Utah's Great Salt Lake is vanishing. As the water disappears, the lakebed is exposed and so is the potential for a health disaster.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,476
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
No matter what you believe regarding climate change, news like this should absolutely concern you to some degree. Even if you ignore the massive amounts of evidence that says humans are contributing to climate change, evidence of a warming Earth means we're inching closer to trouble.
www.reuters.com
World registers hottest day ever recorded on July 3
Monday, July 3, was the hottest day ever recorded globally, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction.
www.reuters.com
