And in the same vein, Australia whipping itself into oblivion, will at best have 1% affect on the estimated climate change, that is if we actually shut the whole place down and last man out switched the lights off.
So your point is?
Why do I have to put up with posters, constantly telling me/we should be doing better, why can't they just post up how they are actually making a ffckn difference?
CoolTry again
"You know individual stuff has no effect long proved by the environment groups its Government policy's and big companies behavior that determines the required outcomes."
What individuals do is only useful for naysayers virtual signaling surely you are not doing that?
You also know longer term there are massive advantages of getting renewables right.
So what's your point
Believe it or not individuals have a huge impact, on emissions, as can be seen by per capita power usage in first world cities as opposed to third world cities.Try again
"You know individual stuff has no effect long proved by the environment groups its Government policy's and big companies behavior that determines the required outcomes."
What individuals do is only useful for naysayers virtual signaling surely you are not doing that?
You also know longer term there are massive advantages of getting renewables right.
So what's your point
My view it's in the middle."You know individual stuff has no effect long proved by the environment groups its Government policy's and big companies behavior that determines the required outcomes."
What individuals do is only useful for naysayers virtual signaling surely you are not doing that?
There no climate crisis!There is no doubt global heating is having a profound effect on the climate around the world. It won't get better. What should be our response ?
I thought this story offered the best way to go.
I understand climate scientists’ despair – but stubborn optimism may be our only hope
Christiana Figueres
View attachment 176589
Fighting spirit helped us achieve the Paris accords in 2015 – and we need it now the world is on course to overshoot 1.5C
‘Hopeless and broken’: why the world’s top climate scientists are in despair
Christiana Figueres was the head of the UN climate change convention from 2010 to 2016
Fri 10 May 2024 01.26 AESTLast modified on Fri 10 May 2024 04.58 AEST
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...stubborn-optimism-paris-2015-climate#comments
262
“Hopeless and broken”: that is how a top scientist interviewed by the Guardian described feeling as she and hundreds of other climate experts shared harrowing predictions of the future of the planet this week.
I resonate with her feelings of despair. Even as the former head of the UN climate change convention that achieved the Paris agreement in 2015, I, like many, can succumb to believing in the worst possible outcome. Just after I assumed the role of UN climate chief in 2010, I said to a room full of reporters that I didn’t believe a global agreement on climate would be possible in my lifetime.
..... A sense of despair is understandable, but it robs us of our agency, makes us vulnerable to mis- and disinformation, and prevents the radical collaboration we need. Doubt holds us back from taking bold action, which is why it is strategically seized upon by incumbents, who have invested millions of dollars (probably much more) in sowing uncertainty around the climate crisis and its solutions among the general public.
We all have a right to grieve the loss of a future free from the climate crisis. It is a deep, hard loss. And it’s particularly painful, because those of us who read these reports bear a great responsibility in passing an unsafe planet on to our children and future generations. But grief that stops at despair is an ending that I and many others, most notably those on the frontlines, are not prepared to accept.
We also have the responsibility – and the opportunity – to shape the future differently. We must take stock of the science, triple down on our efforts and deploy the perspective of possibility.
For example, what has been achieved in transforming the energy system to this point, pushing against a fossil fuel industry deliberately intent on delaying progress, and within a lacklustre policy environment, is extraordinary.
I understand climate scientists' despair – but stubborn optimism may be our only hope | Christiana Figueres
Fighting spirit helped us achieve the Paris accords in 2015 – and we need it now, says climate expert Christiana Figuereswww.theguardian.com
Here's something to consider with regard to the reality of what is happening as our world heats up.
The True Power of the Climate Movement Is Now to Admit Our Own Powerlessness
Six years ago, I gave a public lecture at Churchill College Cambridge, called This Civilisation is Finished. Many students were in the audience. It’s far and away the most viral climate talk I’ve ever given. What explains its success? I’m quite certain that the most significant factor is that I...www.desmog.com
how could they cut through, in 2024? Is it by trying harder? Getting angrier? Evincing a more demanding ideology? Using violence?
From that article:
I'll say no, it's none of those. The solution to war generally isn't more fighting.
What's needed is to drop the politics, to drop any references to the past especially "blame" or "we were right" type arguments and focus on fixing the overall energy situation on all fronts - physical supply, environment, price, geopolitics, etc.
Assuming the science is correct, and I'm not qualified to say it is or isn't, then the solutions are relatively straightforward. The basic problem at the moment being a lack of willingness to make "hard" decisions. Plenty will say climate is the greatest priority and so on - that changes the moment there's a proposal to fix it and they realise the scale of what's involved.
In short, the public needs to grasp, understand and accept the reality of what's required, grit their teeth and get on with it.
At present the "green groups" invariably only want a slowing of emissions, or even just a slowing of growth, in practice despite what they might say meanwhile conservatives argue that God will save us. Centrists then trip over themselves trying to appease both sides. That's never going to work and just leads to endless debate along ideological lines.
An actual solution is one based upon proper science. That is engineering, ecology and so on. What it doesn't need is someone looking to use it as a means to implement a political or religious ideology, get themselves elected to something, or keep themselves busy protesting. That's not fighting for the cause - it's making a mockery of the whole thing.
Real solutions to problems generally happen behind closed doors. Once it's public, once it's political, game over usually.
Bloody sad isn't it ? The only think putting a break on human caused global warming is human caused sulfate emissions. And now of course we are reducing sulfate emissions because of their contribution to pollution.https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.2...
"Global warming in 2010-2023 is 0.30°C/decade, 67% faster than 0.18°C/decade in 1970-
2010 (Fig. 1). The recent warming is different, peaking at 30-60°N (Fig. 2); for clarity we
show the zonal-mean temperature trend both linear in latitude and area-weighted. Such an
acceleration of warming does not simply “happen” – it implies an increased climate forcing
(imposed change of Earth’s energy balance). Greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing growth has been
steady. Solar irradiance has zero trend on decadal time scales. Forcing by volcanic eruptions
has been negligible for 30 years, including water vapor from the Honga Tunga eruption.4 The
one potentially significant change of climate forcing is change of human-made aerosols. The
large warming over the North Pacific and North Atlantic (Fig. 1) coincides with regions
where ship emissions dominate sulfate aerosol production (Fig. 3, from Jin et al.3)"
View attachment 177546
Hard to know what to say about such a challenging situation.What you need to know about record-breaking heat in the Atlantic » Yale Climate Connections
The ocean heat could fuel an unusually active hurricane season.t.co
Relentless global warming charged heat waves.
Delhi temperature hits 50.5C as India’s capital records hottest day
Authorities warn of water shortages as temperatures reach nine degrees higher than expected
Amrit Dhillon in Delhi and Agence France-Presse
Wed 29 May 2024 20.43 AESTFirst published on Wed 29 May 2024 15.54 AEST
Temperatures in Delhi have hit a record high of 50.5C (122.9F), as authorities warned of water shortages in India’s capital.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD), which reported “severe heat-wave conditions”, recorded the temperature in the suburb of Mungeshpur on Wednesday afternoon, breaking the landmark 50C measurement for the first time in the city.
The temperature was more than nine degrees higher than expected, the IMD said, and came on the second day of record-breaking heat. On Tuesday a high of 49.9C had been hit in Mungeshpur and Narela, breaking the 2002 record of 49.2C.
The IMD warned of the heat’s impact on health, especially for children, elderly people and those with chronic diseases. The alert warns there is a “very high likelihood of developing heat illness and heat stroke in all ages”, with “extreme care needed for vulnerable people”.
India is no stranger to searing summer temperatures. Years of scientific research have found the climate crisis is causing heatwaves to become longer, more frequent and more intense.
Delhi heatwave: officials investigating if temperature of 52.9C due to faulty sensor
Meteorological department examining data from Mungeshpur station amid soaring temperatures that came close to 50 degrees Celsiuswww.theguardian.com
Putting aside debates about climate science and just assuming it's correct as stated, the big problem I see is this.We should be in survival mode now. The opportunities we had to stop or (relatively) minimise global warming have passed.
Putting aside debates about climate science and just assuming it's correct as stated, the big problem I see is this.
There's no shortage of engineers, scientists and others who've come up with plans to substantially fix the problem. That is, to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels whilst retaining "life as we know it".
Trouble is, society just won't accept the implementation of those plans. There's always someone who either objects outright, or seeks to cripple it such that it doesn't do the job.
Hence the promises are just that, empty promises. Net zero will not be achieved in 2050, there's no chance of that, and this will become undeniable to all over the next few years.
If governments and the people ever decide they do want to fix it then they know what to do. Put science and engineering in charge and get the rest out of the way.
At the political level I think the background of all involved is at least part of the problem.
Of the 9 energy ministers (state, territory, federal), bottom line is six have a career background that's with politics, unions or lobbying, two are from the media, and the other had an assortment of jobs most notably in the public service.
None have a qualification in any branch of engineering, any field of science or a trade.
Now realise it's much the same throughout the West and the problems become apparent - the blind are standing in the way of the sighted, insisting they get their way and as a result little progress is made with most things done in a way that's unnecessarily slow, complex and expensive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?