“Go and protest properly!”: Cyclist pushes Just Stop Oil protestors off the road to make way for traffic

Rich_cb wrote:

There is no scientific consensus as to what form climate change will take.That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid it but the catastrophe merchants need to accept that their apocalyptic predictions are not certainties but merely possibilities.

Maybe. But why take the chance?

To some extent we have externalised our emissions faster than similar economies. We also had the advantage of North Sea gas which enabled an early and almost complete move away from coal and oil for electricity and space heating.

The move away from coal for electricity came long after North Sea gas had peaked. We were still generating a large proportion of our electricity from coal just a decade ago.

Even when factoring in the externalisation of emissions we've still decarbonised rapidly.

UK gas production peaked between 2000 and 2002, Between 1990 and the end of 2000 the UK electricity industry added over 20GW of gas powered electricity generation capacity substantially lowering CO2 production from older oil and coal powered generation stations. Decarbonisation was well underway over 25 years ago, albeit for primarily economic reasons, though was reversed to some extent by rising gas prices and low global coal prices for a few years around 2010. That though is not to deny the remarkable success of off shore wind in the last few years.

Scientists have been warning of tipping points compounding for the past decade or two. That's when the problems will really start. The highest variance in temperatures between the long term average and actual present day readings are found in the high northern latitudes, up and around the Arctic circle where massive amounts of methane are trapped beneath the perma-frost of the Siberian tundra which, depending upon whose data one chooses to believe, could be released into the atmosphere as early as the next decade. Methane is by far and away the worst of the carbon intensive gases currently trapped in a relatively inert state.
Add in our dwindling clean water resources that provide the growth for the very food the world's population needs to keep us all fed as glaciers and high level snow recede at alarming rates and oblivion can surely be the only outcome.
Perhaps a decade is too alarmist, but putting a timeliness of a century or two from now is just another form of kicking the can down the road, while burying our heads in the sand.
You mention that we are producing more clean energy than ever, yet there is still a huge way to go.
It was reported yesterday that worldwide production of energy from fossil fuels had actually gone up in the last year, even though wind and solar production is at the highest levels ever, such is the demand for electricity as the planet heats up.
I think you'll find the nihilists are those who seek to deny that there is a problem, rather than those who do engage.

There have been apocalyptic predictions for the last few decades, none have so far come to pass.

The transition to net zero is going to take several decades if political consensus is maintained. Maintaining that consensus will be harder once deadlines for "oblivion" are passed with no such oblivion. Catastrophism is therefore detrimental to the overall cause.

I don't think the increased demand for electricity is primarily driven by climate change but rather by 100s of millions of people becoming wealthier and moving towards the lifestyles enjoyed by the citizens of advanced economies. As the price of renewables continues to fall we should be able to accommodate this without jeopardising our overall climate goals.

Transfer of space heating and transport energy needs to electricity from gas and oil will considerably increase electricity demand in developed economies like that of Britain. Renewable generation capacity in Britain is not unlimited. Without substantial attitude changes and consumption habits, the future is very uncertain.

I agree.

The political consensus to pay for the huge changes needed is very fragile, that's what JSO is putting at risk IMHO. Without that consensus net zero by 2050 is impossible.

FWIW I think nuclear is our only real hope. 4 new big plants (inc. Hinckley C) and a smattering of SMRs and net zero is probably achievable.

Much more dangerous to concensus is the unrestrained carbon dioxide production of the global rich. What was the carbon cost of 5 people playing at deep submersible grockle gawping? Or a single flight on Branson's rocket ride? Step down and it is burgeoning private and luxury class jet flights, 3 tonne electric Range Rovers on the drive, and a heated swimming pool , down a step or two more are all those takers of long haul holidays to exotic locations, understandably they say why should we go without when noone seems to bother about the big consumers. Ultimately it is me saying why shouldn't I put up the heating a notch when I'm having to wrap myself in a blanket to watch a tv program on a winters evening.

On a global scale virtually everybody in the UK is "the global rich".

The annual emissions from each domestic boiler are roughly double the entire annual emissions of each person in the developing world.

Yes billionaires have a very high carbon footprint compared to the average person in the UK but that doesn't change the fact that the average person in the UK has a sky high carbon footprint.

I don't deny that, but if the merely affluent are to accept measures that actively curtail their carbon footprint, they will need to see their discomfort shared, and I believe the massive unrestrained overconsumption of a conspicuous few is going to be more damaging to creating such a consensus than a handful of idealistic protestors causing occasional minor inconvenience.

It's not just carbon footprint. Ecological footprint is a more comprehensive measure of an individual's contribution to the problem.

Hmm.  I wonder... if you consider the compromises which have arisen in human societies over time - or indeed exist for many right now.  People will accept immense disparity and objectively poor conditions.

However we are very sensitive to losing "status" (now most often measured in material goods) because of our psychology.

Rich_cb wrote:

On a global scale virtually everybody in the UK is "the global rich". The annual emissions from each domestic boiler are roughly double the entire annual emissions of each person in the developing world. Yes billionaires have a very high carbon footprint compared to the average person in the UK but that doesn't change the fact that the average person in the UK has a sky high carbon footprint.

Good point.  As David Hembrow rants we are in the elite earning (and polluting) few on the planet.

That doesn't stop the UK being a relatively unequal country for "advanced nations".  This status will be little consolation to those at the bottom of the heap in the UK - and for the rest of us we're always conscious of wealth relative to local peers and conditions.

Permafrost atmospheric release of methane may be substantially moderated by concomitant proliferation of methanotrophic bacteria, so the worst case scenarios hopefully will not pan out, particularly with ever improving understanding of the microbial ecology of warming permafrost regions.

wilkij1975 wrote:

That bloke is a bloody legend. Needs an award for that. 

Burly bloke assaulting women is an odd thing to regard as "legend" material. Happy for him to treat your daughters, sisters, mother like that if they happen to aggravate him?

This isn't the sun, fail or telegraph. Wrong place 2 B !

No, it's far worse.

Hey, c'mon. It's time you embraced the 15 minute cities concept. It's inevitable. Ditch the motor. Get some fresh air...
The future is green.

Absolutely. Play stupid games kids...

You forgot to add: "Whilst we have a planet left to play on."

Or rather until we have made our life on the planet too horrible to want to play.

Also worth having a read of Professor Eliot Jacobson's blog (well worth it if you haven't read enough doom recently):

https://climatecasino.net/

Quote:

There is another perspective that the doomer’s awareness brings.  It means doomers don’t have to compete anymore.  They don’t have to win.  They don’t have to be right in every argument they make. The world becomes non-political. Religious beliefs lose their importance. They realize they are part of the human family on a dying planet and that everyone is experiencing a singular and tragic death together – the sixth great extinction – in their own way.

We are going to learn a lot about mass extinction kill mechanisms in the coming decades to compare with the fossil record; interesting experiment!

levestane wrote:

We are going to learn a lot about mass extinction kill mechanisms in the coming decades to compare with the fossil record; interesting experiment!

We already are. I tried to post a link to the WWF website but my tech skills are insufficient.... just like my wattage!

We are losing up to 2 000 species a year already and it will only get worse unless we do something NOW.