By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The Met Office is going to announce today that this July in England has seen less than half of the rainfall of the previous record driest July in the last 190 years.
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change?
It's the biggest issue we face. It's the biggest issue our children face.
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change?
Food prices are going to reflect this imminently, but that's only the beginning.
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change?
We can still make a difference, but we need to get talking.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:14 - Aug 3 by NthQldITFC
On a similar but much lesser note, I had a slightly too long bike ride in the middle of lockdown (think there was a ten mile limit for exercise at the time? - I went a bit further than that). No cars on the roads, no planes in the sky, a handful of other cyclists and walkers out and about. Silence, no fumes, no engine noise, just nature and a few people.
It was exhilarating - utter bloody bliss for me. Loved it. I mean, really loved it. Will value that experience until the day I die.
That part of it was great wasn’t it. We’re quite quiet here as we’re about 3-4 miles out of Swansea, but until then I hadn’t realised how much background noise there was from vehicles. And yeah the lack of planes. We only have the contrails and can rarely hear any, but the skies were properly clear without all the contrail clouds.
"we've already left it far too late" - including land-use change, carbon dioxide has been flat since 2024. China's emissions are falling. But needs to be much lower!
0
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:37 - Aug 3 with 651 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 13:43 - Aug 3 by NthQldITFC
What would be really interesting for an anthropologist, I suppose, would be to be able to go back to a time when population levels were such that overfishing and overgrazing were neither an issue in themselves, nor were there any motivations driving humans to do them.
My pet theory is that we went wrong when we started farming; as soon as we built permanent dwellings we started to fill them with 'stuff' and want bigger dwellings for more stuff. When we had to carry what we owned, we were doing fine.
I think Lovelock pinpointed the invention of the steam engine in the late 18th century as the starting point of our current woes. Funny thing I found about Lovelock was that he was confident that humans are ingenious enough to find a solution, even now.
1
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:46 - Aug 3 with 613 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:42 - Aug 3 by Europa
I think Lovelock pinpointed the invention of the steam engine in the late 18th century as the starting point of our current woes. Funny thing I found about Lovelock was that he was confident that humans are ingenious enough to find a solution, even now.
We probably are in theory, but only if the whole world decided to go for it and do what was necessary. That would require a species-wide psychological reboot.
He was pro nuclear (as am I) and offered to have the nuclear waste from a power station sealed up in concrete and buried under his back garden so that he could get (effectively) concentrated geothermal energy for free.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Actions speak louder than words, I guess. When I was in the UK I didn't own a car. I used Ecotricity (Switch here: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/y ), so the energy I used went into the generation of wind turbines.
I kind of gave up talking about climate change because for 3 reasons:
1. I used to warn people of things that didn't come to pass, so even if it was getting worse, I felt I was negatively contributing to people distrust of information. I don't believe guilting people helps, I think structural change does.
2. I'm on the other side of the debate to most people who want more immediate change. I strongly believe nuclear energy should be a much bigger part of our solution and has slowed our reduction.
3. I think the UK has made big changes. We have discontinued coal. We've reduced our emissions to 45% of our year 2000 levels.
Ultimately I think talking about it in this context is a waste of time. The UK is 0.8% of global emission, down 45% since 2000. If you want to stop climate change, you need to convince China (34%, up 264%) and the US (12%, down 21%) to make drastic reductions. They emit 46% of carbon emissions between them.
Our biggest contribution is now transport (30%). We need more freight on railways. We need the government to incentivise a greater transition to electric vehicles. The UK has a target of most new cars and vans being bought to be electric by 2035. Norway is up to 92%, China is at 48%, so 50% by 2035 seems low.
Food prices will definitely rise, regardless of drought, because of the war in Ukraine. Russia won't be able to ship as much food, as their farmers can't afford fuel and don't want to put unrefined fuel into expensive tractors. That will increase demand elsewhere.
[Post edited 3 Aug 14:54]
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:52 - Aug 3 by Kropotkin123
Actions speak louder than words, I guess. When I was in the UK I didn't own a car. I used Ecotricity (Switch here: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/y ), so the energy I used went into the generation of wind turbines.
I kind of gave up talking about climate change because for 3 reasons:
1. I used to warn people of things that didn't come to pass, so even if it was getting worse, I felt I was negatively contributing to people distrust of information. I don't believe guilting people helps, I think structural change does.
2. I'm on the other side of the debate to most people who want more immediate change. I strongly believe nuclear energy should be a much bigger part of our solution and has slowed our reduction.
3. I think the UK has made big changes. We have discontinued coal. We've reduced our emissions to 45% of our year 2000 levels.
Ultimately I think talking about it in this context is a waste of time. The UK is 0.8% of global emission, down 45% since 2000. If you want to stop climate change, you need to convince China (34%, up 264%) and the US (12%, down 21%) to make drastic reductions. They emit 46% of carbon emissions between them.
Our biggest contribution is now transport (30%). We need more freight on railways. We need the government to incentivise a greater transition to electric vehicles. The UK has a target of most new cars and vans being bought to be electric by 2035. Norway is up to 92%, China is at 48%, so 50% by 2035 seems low.
Food prices will definitely rise, regardless of drought, because of the war in Ukraine. Russia won't be able to ship as much food, as their farmers can't afford fuel and don't want to put unrefined fuel into expensive tractors. That will increase demand elsewhere.
[Post edited 3 Aug 14:54]
2 quick points.
I agree with you on Nuclear - have always felt that is a key part to our reaching Net zero.
Would challenge the argument that we have done our bit - in so far as one key driver is that we no longer manufacture like we used to. So in essence we have exported a chunk of our emissions to China (and other manufacturers)
So whilst we have made positive steps - I still think we can do a fair chunk more (whilst accepting many of your points)
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 09:04 - Aug 3 by RIPbobby
And look what the people with all the money are doing...
Bezos and Musk are both building underground bunkers to protect themselves and rocket ships to get off the planet. What do they know? What is not being told to the small people? Something is coming our way and it is being hidden from us.
That's what you need to think about. What is it?
Do you really want to know?
It’s not pretty.
0
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 15:21 - Aug 3 with 514 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:59 - Aug 3 by bluelagos
2 quick points.
I agree with you on Nuclear - have always felt that is a key part to our reaching Net zero.
Would challenge the argument that we have done our bit - in so far as one key driver is that we no longer manufacture like we used to. So in essence we have exported a chunk of our emissions to China (and other manufacturers)
So whilst we have made positive steps - I still think we can do a fair chunk more (whilst accepting many of your points)
Agree with your challenge. It is almost always more complex than I feel I can layout in an online post, which is probably another reason I don't bother talking about it anymore.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
Turns out Nuclear isn't that viable when you've got no river water to cool the reactors https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art (I appreciate we use the Sea in our few reactors)
Sizewell C is going to cost £38bn and take a decade, could buy a hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar arrays for that and generate energy for the 10+ years it'll take to build C
0
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 15:36 - Aug 3 with 482 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 15:26 - Aug 3 by KrakenBlue
Turns out Nuclear isn't that viable when you've got no river water to cool the reactors https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art (I appreciate we use the Sea in our few reactors)
Sizewell C is going to cost £38bn and take a decade, could buy a hell of a lot of wind turbines and solar arrays for that and generate energy for the 10+ years it'll take to build C
Yes but you either need a base load of power for when it’s dark or the wind blows. So you either need nuclear, or tonnes of battery storage. In fact we already have so much renewable energy the grid can’t always cope so it’s shut off From that point of view nuclear looks like a better and cleaner option than battery storage, which in itself comes from dirty polluting mining and often dubious employment practices.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be wasting so much water on data centres and use it for nuclear cooling instead. There’s also a pipeline of SMR projects which could be a game changer.
0
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 15:39 - Aug 3 with 475 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 13:43 - Aug 3 by NthQldITFC
What would be really interesting for an anthropologist, I suppose, would be to be able to go back to a time when population levels were such that overfishing and overgrazing were neither an issue in themselves, nor were there any motivations driving humans to do them.
My pet theory is that we went wrong when we started farming; as soon as we built permanent dwellings we started to fill them with 'stuff' and want bigger dwellings for more stuff. When we had to carry what we owned, we were doing fine.
What have the Mesopotamians ever done for us?
1
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 00:39 - Aug 4 with 307 views
I have been for ages. Just gave up. Too many with their heads in the sand and have no intention to remove them as it might involve them actually doing something. Pity I won't be around to apologise to the future generations for the complete mess we're leaving. If predictions are right about El Nino, 2026 will have nothing on 2027 round the world, weather wise.
0
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 07:01 - Aug 4 with 187 views
Why aren't YOU talking about climate change? on 14:52 - Aug 3 by Kropotkin123
Actions speak louder than words, I guess. When I was in the UK I didn't own a car. I used Ecotricity (Switch here: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/y ), so the energy I used went into the generation of wind turbines.
I kind of gave up talking about climate change because for 3 reasons:
1. I used to warn people of things that didn't come to pass, so even if it was getting worse, I felt I was negatively contributing to people distrust of information. I don't believe guilting people helps, I think structural change does.
2. I'm on the other side of the debate to most people who want more immediate change. I strongly believe nuclear energy should be a much bigger part of our solution and has slowed our reduction.
3. I think the UK has made big changes. We have discontinued coal. We've reduced our emissions to 45% of our year 2000 levels.
Ultimately I think talking about it in this context is a waste of time. The UK is 0.8% of global emission, down 45% since 2000. If you want to stop climate change, you need to convince China (34%, up 264%) and the US (12%, down 21%) to make drastic reductions. They emit 46% of carbon emissions between them.
Our biggest contribution is now transport (30%). We need more freight on railways. We need the government to incentivise a greater transition to electric vehicles. The UK has a target of most new cars and vans being bought to be electric by 2035. Norway is up to 92%, China is at 48%, so 50% by 2035 seems low.
Food prices will definitely rise, regardless of drought, because of the war in Ukraine. Russia won't be able to ship as much food, as their farmers can't afford fuel and don't want to put unrefined fuel into expensive tractors. That will increase demand elsewhere.
[Post edited 3 Aug 14:54]
"The UK is 0.8% of global emissions...you need to convince China (34%, up 264%)". We have convinced China. Their emissions are now falling. That "up 264%" is since the year 2000. It's expected that a country that has massively developed since then has increased emissions.
If we, the rest of the world beyond US & China, who emit the most, all point our fingers at those two, emissions won't shrink. "We" need to reduce emissions needs to become "I" need to reduce emissions (ie UK). Vote net zero.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
