It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

[Jim_Campbell]

Worth reminding ourselves that for all the necessity of modifying our own behaviours and personal choices 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.

This won't change until we vote in governments that are prepared to do something about it. If these companies want to continue doing business, they need to be legislated against, to, say remove 1.5 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere for every tonne they produce, or will be produced by the products they sell. It's not unreasonable to place this burden on them — the nuclear industry wasn't allowed to say "Yeah, we know our by-products are harmful, but dealing with them is expensive and difficult." Same damn thing.

[shaolin_monkey]

Aye, absolutely.

If you're interested, the data set for those companies is here:

https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/comfy/cms/files/files/000/000/978/original/Carbon-Majors-Database-2017-Datasets.zip


The report that came out of the back of the data is here:


https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772

The report is well worth a read.

The logical conclusion is to then consider who has benefitted the most when these emissions were generated. The answer is us. We probably sit in the richest one billion people, who generate 50% of the emissions from the way we consume. The onus is on the 'western' world, our society, to repay a huge carbon debt.

There's a study on the consumption that generates those emissions here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8

You can read a breakdown of the attached study from Prof. Steinberger and co. , plus her further commentary on their findings here:

https://twitter.com/jksteinberger/status/1239811251213041665?s=21

There's an argument that those putting forward 'reduce population' as a solution are coming at it from an ideological point of view, rather than a scientific one, given that the bottom poorest three billion contribute only something like 10% of the overall emissions. It may even be less than that.

More on that here:

https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man


So yes, you are absolutely correct. Systemic change is needed, and that is determined by legislation, which is determined by who we vote for.

The problem we are facing is one of overconsumption by a relatively small percentage of the world's population. The rich are literally consuming the world from under the feet of everyone else. See attached study from Prof. Julia Steinberger and co.

It is a myth that overpopulation is to blame. This cherry picks data, focussing on the consumption of a few, and ignoring the low impact of the large majority of people on the planet.

If we got the highest consumers (I.e. us rich folk in the West) to match the environmental footprint of a citizen of, say, Uganda or Nigeria for example, we'd likely be absolutely fine.

We in the West must decarbonise rapidly, and halt our overconsumption. This requires systemic change, hence the peaceful but disruptive actions from Extinction Rebellion.

Sorry for the long rambling post. It has to be said, the things I've studied recently, and the reactions from idiots, particularly those in power, to climate and ecological events happening around the world, has left me struggling to process and feeling rather unhinged.

[shaolin_monkey]

September continues to smash heat records across Europe:

https://twitter.com/scottduncanwx/status/1305969477545267203?s=21

[Funt Solo]

We're on day #5 of the gloom.

Day#6 of the gloom.

Trump says winter is coming. I burn my boxed set of GoT. Doesn't help the air quality. Gloom!

[shaolin_monkey]

We're on day #5 of the gloom.

Day#6 of the gloom.

Trump says winter is coming. I burn my boxed set of GoT. Doesn't help the air quality. Gloom!

The smoke has made it all the way to Northern Europe:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-wildfires-smoke-europe-satellite-california-oregon-b455594.html

[shaolin_monkey]

A great article from the BBC about how the fossil fuel industry pulled out all the stops to prevent honest discussion about their product - for 40 years!!

Their playbook copied the tobacco industry, and has also been employed by the sugar and pesticides industry.

The fossil fuel industry generated false debate about the science that has affected all corners of discussion around the issue - even here on this very thread!

Over the next decade or two we shall see how many people it kills.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382

[IndigoPrime]

Ah, but watch them now rapidly pivot and get all the plaudits for going greener.

[shaolin_monkey]

In Europe, you don't often rub shoulders with someone who doesn't believe in climate change. Although climate change denial is alive and well in America – not least in the White House – people here mostly accept that climate change is, to some degree, happening.

But that doesn't mean climate denialism has gone away. Instead, according to new research from the University of Cardiff, it has simply changed shape, into something they call "discourses of delay". These 12 arguments, favoured by politicians and industry figures, are a more subtle way of downplaying the need for action on climate change than full-on denialism, but no less corrosive to efforts to mitigate damaging climate effects. And they're filtering into the public consciousness rapidly. Rather than arguing that climate change isn't happening, now you hear people arguing that it's too late, too difficult, too controversial, too unfair, too hasty, to take serious action on climate change.

How do you debunk these arguments when you hear them? Tackling these types of misinformation is no mean feat; often they're put forward in good faith. But explaining to someone the fallacies behind these common discourses of delay can work as what Dr. William Lamb, one of the authors of the Cardiff paper, calls an "inoculation strategy" against future misinformation on climate change.

- Imogen West-Knights, Vice, Sep 25, 2020
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3z737/the-12-arguments-every-climate-denier-uses-and-how-to-debunk-them

[shaolin_monkey]

Amidst the horrors happening in the U.K. and the U.S. right now, there is finally a reason to be positive.

Finally, some international traction in the fight against climate change.

And who is leading the charge?

China!!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878?fbclid=IwAR0PKt879V0A4QzNrNa1aW5wsYo1GjZQamnbG4dpKC8baJGxr5NVKEmUMfc

[shaolin_monkey]

Here is a study published recently that shows we can provide a decent standard of living for everyone, taking into account population growth, and still reduce global energy use to 1960 levels.

You'll often hear the myth that moving away from fossil fuel use, and turning to carbon sequestration instead of burning, would reduce living standards. This appears to be based on free market ideology that would rather preserve the status quo rather than allow the policy making and regulation that would enforce a low carbon society.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512

[shaolin_monkey]

I want the U.K. to so much be a part of this enormously positive European push to drive down CO2, such as:

- 60% less C02 emissions by 2030
- End of subsidies for coal, oil and gas
- CO2 budget for Europe
- Scientific Climate Council

But from January we'll be out of the EU completely.

Brexit is a tragedy for so many reasons, and this is perhaps one of the worst. It's heartbreaking.

We could have been part of this huge movement, solving humankind's greatest crisis - come January we'll be part of nothing.


https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201002IPR88431/eu-climate-law-meps-want-to-increase-2030-emissions-reduction-target-to-60

[IndigoPrime]

But Boris said we're going to power the entire UK with wind! We'll be the Saudi of wind! He said! Etc!

[shaolin_monkey]

The thing is, we're already heading in that direction after decades of hard work from others. When we reach it no doubt Johnson will claim credit for the hard work of others, announcing it was as a result of his grand plan. He's a bloody liar.

On the plus side, this recent clip of James O'Brien chatting to James Kelloway, the Energy Intelligence Manager at the National Grid, is absolutely fascinating and quite heartening.

There are some incredible figures in there that illustrate how quickly U.K. energy generation has decarbonised over the last decade.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/were-world-leaders-in-this-expert-gives-optimistic-breakdown-of-uk-electricity-g/?fbclid=IwAR3P0KsH_27SY62s-MowN4yWhnzz04KWU-7iZbsnLtWd9Gvs_qat7rQhkvQ

[shaolin_monkey]

Did you know there's an app by the National Grid that shows the regional carbon intensity of electricity generation around the U.K.?

At the risk of sounding patronising, carbon intensity means how much CO2 is emitted when we generate our power.

Burning fossil fuels, particularly coal, is high in CO2 emissions. 

Using renewables such as wind and solar is incredibly low in CO2 emissions. Energy generated by renewables is also becoming much cheaper than fossil!

Search for 'ESO' in your App Store and it should pop up.

The results are fascinating. My 'home country' (haven't lived there in 35 years mind) of Scotland is doing really bloody well, at 98% zero carbon.

However, South Wales really needs to up its game, at only 12%!!

The goal is a consistent national carbon intensity of under 100 grams of CO2 emissions for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generated. 

We have occasionally hit that national target, but it needs to be every day, not just every now and then.

The average across the U.K. at the moment is 149g CO2 per kWh, which is already an ENORMOUS improvement on a decade ago, but still needs to go further.


https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/introducing-our-carbon-intensity-app

[IndigoPrime]

Incidentally—and this might have already been answered earlier in the thread (indeed, I might have asked it)—but what is the current best-placed strategy for energy use within this country? I would have thought enforced solar + tons of wind + strategic tidal would be an obvious and solid start, but is that enough? Should we eradicate nuclear? Do we have to make very tough decisions in the future regarding all power consumption? Any links to insight on this would be interesting.