Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[Gehrman]

So what's the alternative that Kennedy is proposing? Or is it just a case of it's too expensive and difficult, so let's do feck all?

Im not Kennedy so i dont know. But i imagine he wants some specific estimates from the person who's job it is to have those estimates.

On deeper level i can imagine he's toying with idea whether spending trillions of dollars makes any meaningful difference considering south american countries, China and India are increasing their co2 output and are unwilling to stop to do so at the expense of the wealth of their citizens and economical growth which just means the US would be spending a fortune in symbolic politics that amounts to feck all.

 

[nimic]

So what's the alternative that Kennedy is proposing? Or is it just a case of it's too expensive and difficult, so let's do feck all?

I was curious about the source, so I took a quick look at his twitter page. Turns out he recently re-tweeted a tweet by EndWokeness. You know, this guy:

 

[Massive Spanner]

Im not Kennedy so i dont know. But i imagine he wants some specific estimates from the person who's job it is to have those estimates.

On deeper level i can imagine he's toying with idea whether spending trillions of dollars makes any meaningful difference considering south american countries and China are increasing their co2 output and are unwilling to do so at the expense of the wealth of their citizens and economical growth which just means the US would be spending a fortune in symbolic politics that amounts to feck all.

Yeah like why should the UK do anything if the US won’t do anything?

and why should little Ireland do anything if the UK won’t do anything?

am I doing it right?

 

[Gehrman]

Yeah like why should the UK do anything if the US won’t do anything?

and why should little Ireland do anything if the UK won’t do anything?

am I doing it right?

In a democracy ideally the voter gets to decide. But in short yes. If the UK were to sink into the sea it would make feck all difference. And a lot of people want the UK to sink into the sea.

 

[nimic]

In other words, you think we should do literally nothing (because it would make feck all difference). The world might go to shit for a while, but at least history books are going to expose the moral bankruptcy in that.

 

[BD]

On deeper level i can imagine he's toying with idea whether spending trillions of dollars makes any meaningful difference considering south american countries and China are increasing their co2 output and are unwilling to stop to do so at the expense of the wealth of their citizens and economical growth which just means the US would be spending a fortune in symbolic politics that amounts to feck all.

So 'do nothing' - just as I expected.

I was curious about the source, so I took a quick look at his twitter page. Turns out he recently re-tweeted a tweet by EndWokeness. You know, this guy:

Yeah I didn't expect much from the account that says "net zero is a religious cult"

 

[Gehrman]

In other words, you think we should do literally nothing (because it would make feck all difference). The world might go to shit for a while, but at least history books are going to expose the moral bankruptcy in that.

No in other words, we should spend the money if it makes a difference. If it doesnt you are just making the taxpayer impoverished. My father founded UK's first green energy company. This has been dinner table conversation half my life. I have just expressed a lack of interest since i was just never very interested in it in the first place.

 

[nimic]

No in other words, we should spend the money if it makes a difference. If it doesnt you are just making the taxpayer impoverished. My father founded UK's first green energy company. This has been dinner table conversation half my life. I have just expressed a lack of interest since i was just never very interested in it in the first place.

But you just said the UK could sink into the sea and it would make "feck all difference", so clearly you do think we should do literally nothing because literally nothing we do can make a difference.

 

[Gehrman]

But you just said the UK could sink into the sea and it would make "feck all difference", so clearly you do think we should do literally nothing because literally nothing we do can make a difference.

Unless it actually makes tangible difference, i dont think we should spend trillions on it unless we make that money back. Otherwise its fecking over the taxpayer.

Its like asking should we spend trillions of the taxpayers money on something that really makes no difference to the core issue? Most sane people would say no. It doesnt mean you have to nothing, but perhaps shift the targets.

 

[nimic]

Unless it actually makes tangible difference, i dont think we should spend trillions on it unless we make that money back. Otherwise its fecking over the taxpayer.

Its like asking should we spend trillions of the taxpayers money on something that really makes no difference to the core issue? Most sane people would say no. It doesnt mean you have to nothing, but perhaps shift the targets.

Okay, so you've talked a lot about what not to do, but then what do you suggest we actually do?

 

[Gehrman]

Okay, so you've talked a lot about what not to do, but then what do you suggest we actually do?

I dont know if we means the US, UK, Ireland, Denmark or Norway?

I would say that if all calculations say that Net Zero is impossible by 2050 due to the fact that in order for this to work ALL countries have to comply, which they wont, is simply to shift the targets to later dates, so we dont spend a massive amounts of money that will make most of us poorer and do it in a rhym that is tune with our economy and standard of living. Also its worth noting that China sits on the worlds largest cache of rare earth minerals and metals needed for both windmills and electric cars, so if we could postpone being China´s bitch a bit longer that would be grand. Also mining those metals and minerals are absolutely toxic for the enviroment. And yes emits a lot of co2.

If we are all going to die if we dont meet Net zero, well the world wasnt going to meet it anyway. And less people die now of climate related disasters, changes etc. than in any point in history.

 

[SirAF]

Dickheads like Kennedy are exactly why we are fecked and will never get where we need to go. But that guy he was talking to should’ve had the numbers at hand.

Yup, basically this.

 

[Gehrman]

On a less political level I personally think this is a good video. His report is 1000 pages long which no one who isnt in business is going to read including me although I did try to skim it, but I thought this was a good summary off it about the bottlenecks to a renewable transistion. Taken from https://www.gtk.fi/en/current/there...he-development-of-the-solutions-have-started/

Edit: sorry I meant this one


There is a longer video with simon an interview where he goes into more detail. The fact that the interviewer is a total babe balances the vision of simon being a total nerd. I think they go off topic on Ukraine and nordstream ans Simon is speaking from outdated information on this but otherwise its good

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

In a democracy ideally the voter gets to decide. But in short yes. If the UK were to sink into the sea it would make feck all difference. And a lot of people want the UK to sink into the sea.

Property prices will plummet to depths never seen before. That will make a lot of difference to affluent like minded people all over the world.

 

[Gehrman]

Property prices will plummet to depths never seen before. That will make a lot of difference to affluent like minded people all over the world.

According to Ben Shapiro, why dont we just sell them?

I know the meme, just joking.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

I come from Asia and it is very survival of the fittest as to who makes a decent living. The people who have made it have no intention of inconveniencing themselves with climate change stuff. It will take a generation of prosperity to change people's minds to climate change.

 

[Gehrman]

I come from Asia and it is very survival of the fittest as to who makes a decent living. The people who have made it have no intention of inconveniencing themselves with climate change stuff. It will take a generation of prosperity to change people's minds to climate change.

That takes me back to this video. And on beforehand I will say, it annoys me that he takes cheap shots at wokeness, but I find what he says about South America and Asia to be completely true and he does it in a very clear manner, but the overall topic about wokeness detracts it a bit, but what he says about the reality of Net Zero is true even if brief.


Its only 9 minutes for anyone who has the time.

 

[BD]

That takes me back to this video. And on beforehand I will say, it annoys me that he takes cheap shots at wokeness, but I find what he says about South America and Asia to be completely true and he does it in a very clear manner, but the overall topic about wokeness detracts it a bit, but what he says about the reality of Net Zero is true even if brief.


Its only 9 minutes for anyone who has the time.

I didn't really get his point - the last few lines were all he had to say: "let's find a way to create cleaner and more efficient energy, and help prevent climate change" (me paraphrasing). Why all the shite about wokeness before that, as well that little dig and transgenderism for absolutely no reason.

Of course extremely poor people are more interested in where their next meal is coming from, but why does that mean that we here in the West shouldn't consider reducing our own impact? Or do we just say feck it, there are poor people in South America, so let's not bother trying. It's the same as the Kennedy video previously - these people really don't want to inconvenience themselves at all, or pull-back on their living habits, so they hind behind Asia and South America and say "those guys first". And then have the gall to dress it up as being sympathetic of poor people.

 

[Gehrman]

I didn't really get his point - the last few lines were all he had to say: "let's find a way to create cleaner and more efficient energy, and help prevent climate change" (me paraphrasing). Why all the shite about wokeness before that, as well that little dig and transgenderism for absolutely no reason.

Of course extremely poor people are more interested in where their next meal is coming from, but why does that mean that we here in the West shouldn't consider reducing our own impact? Or do we just say feck it, there are poor people in South America, so let's not bother trying. It's the same as the Kennedy video previously - these people really don't want to inconvenience themselves at all, or pull-back on their living habits, so they hind behind Asia and South America and say "those guys first". And then have the gall to dress it up as being sympathetic of poor people.

I think the reason why he talked about wokeness was because the motion was "Woke culture has gone too far". For or against? He is obviously for.

And I think his point about poverty, South America and Asia, is let us not kid ourselves about the impact we are actually making when you consider the global scale of things. But also let us not lambast poorer people for wanting to be richer even if that comes at the expense of burning fossil fuels.

 

[berbatrick]

And I think his point about poverty, South America and Asia, is let us not kid ourselves about the impact we are actually making when you consider the global scale of things. But also let us not lambast poorer people for wanting to be richer even if that comes at the expense of burning fossil fuels.

Clearly, climate change will be largely due to third world peasants are burning fossil fuels. There's no real way to pour massive resources into electrifying those countries without increasing fossil fuel consumption.
It's also really cool that they will suffer the most for this - the criminal and the punished are the same, which is rare in society!

 

[Massive Spanner]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

We are absolutely fecked and it's going to happen a lot sooner than we thought

 

[BD]

I understand that the caf can be an odd place and may not necessarily representative. However, what strikes me is the lack of reactions to these occasional headlines that emerge and briefly break the silence in this thread. It seems to indicate that most people have pushed the issue of climate change to the back of their minds. This is particularly noticeable when compared to the Covid thread during the pandemic - it's not entirely surprising, just disheartening. The consequences of climate change are way too long-term and (relatively) slow-moving for us to address the issue with the same urgency as we did with Covid. And the actions we can take to make a difference right now probably seem drastic to most people.

We fecked

 

[Buster15]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65602293

We are absolutely fecked and it's going to happen a lot sooner than we thought

Exactly. And my real concern is that once the+1.5C threshold is passed, governments could well say that there is little point in their Net Zero targets.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I understand that the caf can be an odd place and may not necessarily representative. However, what strikes me is the lack of reactions to these occasional headlines that emerge and briefly break the silence in this thread. It seems to indicate that most people have pushed the issue of climate change to the back of their minds. This is particularly noticeable when compared to the Covid thread during the pandemic - it's not entirely surprising, just disheartening. The consequences of climate change are way too long-term and (relatively) slow-moving for us to address the issue with the same urgency as we did with Covid. And the actions we can take to make a difference right now probably seem drastic to most people.

We fecked

It represents the wider viewpoint, not just of individuals but governments as a whole. When covid hit there was an immediate impact so everyone rallied, shut everything down without a consequence for the financial implications. Climate change is still a "future" thing and nobody wants to actually address it right now. We'd all rather ignore it and hope someone solves the problem for us.

 

[Stack]

It represents the wider viewpoint, not just of individuals but governments as a whole. When covid hit there was an immediate impact so everyone rallied, shut everything down without a consequence for the financial implications. Climate change is still a "future" thing and nobody wants to actually address it right now. We'd all rather ignore it and hope someone solves the problem for us.

I think its no longer a future thing, I think its here right now and happening. Its happening at an ever increasing rate. All the indicators are showing that. The current spike in average ocean temperatures, the ever speeding melting of Glazers, the frequencies with which countries are recording record temperatures for months, the current temperature spikes in various parts of the world. Its impacting our economies right now, one quick indicator is the increases already happening in housing insurances especially in countries with coastal regions. Various govts around the world increasing borrowing to fund repairs from recent weather events.

 

[Zen86]

I understand that the caf can be an odd place and may not necessarily representative. However, what strikes me is the lack of reactions to these occasional headlines that emerge and briefly break the silence in this thread. It seems to indicate that most people have pushed the issue of climate change to the back of their minds. This is particularly noticeable when compared to the Covid thread during the pandemic - it's not entirely surprising, just disheartening. The consequences of climate change are way too long-term and (relatively) slow-moving for us to address the issue with the same urgency as we did with Covid. And the actions we can take to make a difference right now probably seem drastic to most people.

We fecked

I think most people understand that it’s a major issue. The problem is the concept of climate change is “depressing”, complex, not something we the public can really influence, and not the most immediate concern.

It’s arguably the single biggest failure of global leadership and capitalism.

 

[Parma Dewol]

I think most people understand that it’s a major issue. The problem is the concept of climate change is “depressing”, complex, not something we the public can really influence, and not the most immediate concern.

It’s arguably the single biggest failure of global leadership and capitalism.

I'd agree with that. Made a few changes ourselves - we're now vegetarian, use the car less and are generally more green-aware - but it's hard not to be depressed about the overall outlook. Upsetting just to think about the mess being left for future generations.

 

[Zen86]

I'd agree with that. Made a few changes ourselves - we're now vegetarian, use the car less and are generally more green-aware - but it's hard not to be depressed about the overall outlook. Upsetting just to think about the mess being left for future generations.

Yeah, being a relatively new rather I do get anxious about what the world will become as they grow up. I’m generally quite green in day-to-day life but I’ll still board a plane, drive a car when needed, etc.

But the scale of the problem is just too great to comprehend. What difference do I make if I turn the heating off, when people far richer than me regularly board private jets, or millions of others keep their boiler chugging away. Even at a macro level, what difference does the UK make if China and India pump out what they do every day. And then why should China sacrifice their economy if the US won’t do the same. There’s too many geopolitical problems both past and present to overcome, so it will unfortunately boil down to each looking after their own.

 

[Penna]

In Italy, the Emilia-Romagna region is dealing with catastrophic flooding which has left at least 13 people dead and thousands homeless. We're slightly further down the country on the same side, and we've had extremely unseasonable weather recently - no rain for months in the winter, and this month it's been day after day of heavy rain and cool temperatures. This is not what we expect in May, which is usually warm and dry for us.

The Italian authorities are blaming this firmly on climate change, and they may well be right. Others think that the fact that many rivers all burst their banks on the same day points to neglect of waterways, in terms of dredging or lack of it - but that doesn't explain the change in the normal pattern of weather here.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I understand that the caf can be an odd place and may not necessarily representative. However, what strikes me is the lack of reactions to these occasional headlines that emerge and briefly break the silence in this thread. It seems to indicate that most people have pushed the issue of climate change to the back of their minds. This is particularly noticeable when compared to the Covid thread during the pandemic - it's not entirely surprising, just disheartening. The consequences of climate change are way too long-term and (relatively) slow-moving for us to address the issue with the same urgency as we did with Covid. And the actions we can take to make a difference right now probably seem drastic to most people.

We fecked

The issue with the apparently apathy, I believe, is linked to the sense of hopelessness about what can be done to stop it. I’ve made personal changes such as eating habits and limited energy use, but when governments are still talking about things like fracking, and the 1% responsible for the majority of emissions are seemingly doing nothing to stop the wastefulness, what can be done?

Personally, I’ve gotten to the point of a near full mental breakdown because of issues going on in the world; a mixture of climate worries, corrupt government behaviour, global rises in poverty, predatory capitalism, but what is the point? Barring a full global economic and energy revolution nothing will change, and there’s far too much (short-sighted) money invested in keeping things exactly how they are, believing in unlimited growth on a planet with limited resources.

My biggest regret is having had a child in this situation, it was selfish and cruel to bring her in to this world that’s ready to destroy itself for a dollar.

 

[TwoSheds]

Why do people still pretend there's some dichotomy between investing in green stuff and the economy doing well? The UK will soon demonstrate how false that is as the US, China and EU compete to subsidise their green industries and our economy shrivels as we suckle at the deliberately dry teat of the ultra wealthy fossil fuel owners.

Your prosperity is dependent precisely on an energy transition, and in fact that is why so many ultra wealthy people poison the well against it.

 

[DavelinaJolie]

It represents the wider viewpoint, not just of individuals but governments as a whole. When covid hit there was an immediate impact so everyone rallied, shut everything down without a consequence for the financial implications. Climate change is still a "future" thing and nobody wants to actually address it right now. We'd all rather ignore it and hope someone solves the problem for us.

And look at how many people railed against the response to COVID. The response to climate change requires societal changes on a global level, but if you even suggest the idea of a 15 minute town or some other plan to try and reduce carbon impact people act like it's a conspiracy to lock them in their homes, ignoring the long term potential benefits to health and the environment. It's especially frustrating when things like working from home could be viable for so many people and can reduce traffic, but instead people are forced to go into an office and then politicians and media groups try to make them feel guilty for not buying packaged sandwiches at Pret or whatever. And that's only a drop in the ocean of potential reconfigurations we could make.

We have grown up in a situation where our freedoms and their long term consequences have been largely divorced by perception, and we're now sold "fixes" like EVs which in reality are just setting back the actual solutions to keep us in a cycle of buying. Staring down the barrel of reality is uncomfortable for most of us. I'm as guilty of it as anyone too, so I'm not wishing to preach. But our consumerism and luxuries have helped push us towards this situation, and we rebel at the idea of giving at least some of those up. I know it's only part of the picture, but if we all stopped wanting new things all the time we could curb some of the manufacturing that contributes. Of course then you also get into economic problems such as job losses, businesses collapsing etc.

Our systems as they exists are so dependent on damaging practices that I just don't see how most people would actively fight for change when faced with the jarring solutions that need to come.

Frankly it all makes my head hurt because I can only comprehend a tiny amount of the change required, even though I'm trying to do better myself. It feels entirely hopeless, so I can understand why people bury their heads in the sand. What I can't understand are the people so vociferously anti-doing anything.

 

[Gehrman]

And look at how many people railed against the response to COVID. The response to climate change requires societal changes on a global level, but if you even suggest the idea of a 15 minute town or some other plan to try and reduce carbon impact people act like it's a conspiracy to lock them in their homes, ignoring the long term potential benefits to health and the environment. It's especially frustrating when things like working from home could be viable for so many people and can reduce traffic, but instead people are forced to go into an office and then politicians and media groups try to make them feel guilty for not buying packaged sandwiches at Pret or whatever. And that's only a drop in the ocean of potential reconfigurations we could make.

We have grown up in a situation where our freedoms and their long term consequences have been largely divorced by perception, and we're now sold "fixes" like EVs which in reality are just setting back the actual solutions to keep us in a cycle of buying. Staring down the barrel of reality is uncomfortable for most of us. I'm as guilty of it as anyone too, so I'm not wishing to preach. But our consumerism and luxuries have helped push us towards this situation, and we rebel at the idea of giving at least some of those up. I know it's only part of the picture, but if we all stopped wanting new things all the time we could curb some of the manufacturing that contributes. Of course then you also get into economic problems such as job losses, businesses collapsing etc.

Our systems as they exists are so dependent on damaging practices that I just don't see how most people would actively fight for change when faced with the jarring solutions that need to come.

Frankly it all makes my head hurt because I can only comprehend a tiny amount of the change required, even though I'm trying to do better myself. It feels entirely hopeless, so I can understand why people bury their heads in the sand. What I can't understand are the people so vociferously anti-doing anything.

Did you ever watch this part of the interview which I posted previously. If you did watch it, or simply this minor part of it, what did you think of it? Essentially if you understand this, you know why China and India are firing up coal(25% of imported electricity in the UK comes from the netherlands as well, well from coal plants, but the Netherlands get marked with the CO2 quotas for that not the UK, which means that there is a fiddling of the books when it comes to countries to try and market themselves as Net Zero idealists).

 

[Gehrman]

Why do people still pretend there's some dichotomy between investing in green stuff and the economy doing well? The UK will soon demonstrate how false that is as the US, China and EU compete to subsidise their green industries and our economy shrivels as we suckle at the deliberately dry teat of the ultra wealthy fossil fuel owners.

Your prosperity is dependent precisely on an energy transition, and in fact that is why so many ultra wealthy people poison the well against it.

With our current technologies renewables(replacables) might not be more expensive, but they are not reliable. Im just talking about solar and wind, not EV´s and stuff like that. However even the people who dont give a shit about green energy will have to acknowledge that peak oil has already happened and eventually we will have to look for new sources of energy anyway.

BTW: My dad sent me this cartoon in response to why if green energy is cheap why dont we just do it. And he was the 1st ever person to sell windmills in the UK.

 

[TwoSheds]

With our current technologies renewables(replacables) might not be more expensive, but they are not reliable. Im just talking about solar and wind, not EV´s and stuff like that. However even the people who dont give a shit about green energy will have to acknowledge that peak oil has already happened and eventually we will have to look for new sources of energy anyway.

BTW: My dad sent me this cartoon in response to why if green energy is cheap why dont we just do it. And he was the 1st ever person to sell windmills in the UK.

You're talking to someone who works on green energy and energy storage for a living so if you think I'm less educated on it than your dad then I think you're probably mistaken. To obsess over one Daily Telegraph talking point of the transition is to miss the point entirely. There is no one solution to climate change unless we go back to primitive agrarian economies (which will obviously never happen). The solutions are manifold and need to be considered together. For example, hydrogen, ammonia, heat batteries, flow batteries, lithium ion batteries, they're all different and valid ways of storing energy and/or tackling the problem of "hard to decarbonise" industry.

All of them are going to need to be developed in order to solve the problem. As are the efficiency and sustainability of solar, wind and all sorts of other energy generation methods. No one of them will solve the issue, but all of them together with the right political will absolutely can. But one sector lagging behind shouldn't stop us from pressing ahead with the others that are going well. We need all of them as fast as they can possibly happen in order to avoid disaster. To hold another viewpoint, particularly if you work in the industry and actually should understand it, is incredibly thick, pointless and nihilistic. And that's just the truth whether you like it or not. A much more fundamental and useful truth to your aims than "the wind doesn't blow all the time".

 

[Gehrman]

You're talking to someone who works on green energy and energy storage for a living so if you think I'm less educated on it than your dad then I think you're probably mistaken. To obsess over one Daily Telegraph talking point of the transition is to miss the point entirely. There is no one solution to climate change unless we go back to primitive agrarian economies (which will obviously never happen). The solutions are manifold and need to be considered together. For example, hydrogen, ammonia, heat batteries, flow batteries, lithium ion batteries, they're all different and valid ways of storing energy and/or tackling the problem of "hard to decarbonise" industry.

All of them are going to need to be developed in order to solve the problem. As are the efficiency and sustainability of solar, wind and all sorts of other energy generation methods. No one of them will solve the issue, but all of them together with the right political will absolutely can. But one sector lagging behind shouldn't stop us from pressing ahead with the others that are going well. We need all of them as fast as they can possibly happen in order to avoid disaster. To hold another viewpoint, particularly if you work in the industry and actually should understand it, is incredibly thick, pointless and nihilistic. And that's just the truth whether you like it or not. A much more fundamental and useful truth to your aims than "the wind doesn't blow all the time".

My dad has also been working with green energy and battery storage for quite a lot of his life. Actually his previous project was selling batteries for storage of renewable energy, however im not going to go down the route that he is more qualified as people such as yourself simply because he is my father, but he is a person who's worked primarily as an energy consultant all of my life and someone to lean on for information on the topic of energy. Since you are in the business and im not and never wanted to be, i think i will stay more quiet. Since my father has also worked with battery storage very recently and for 2 decades but holds a far more pessimistic view about what's possible, he's the type of person who loves to discuss this topic with just about everyone. If you have any interest in discussing your viewpoints with a peer, albeit an old one pr. Email, i can send it to you over a pm if you wish, and i understand if you have no desire or wish to do so.

 

[4bars]

That takes me back to this video. And on beforehand I will say, it annoys me that he takes cheap shots at wokeness, but I find what he says about South America and Asia to be completely true and he does it in a very clear manner, but the overall topic about wokeness detracts it a bit, but what he says about the reality of Net Zero is true even if brief.


Its only 9 minutes for anyone who has the time.

Seriously this guy is having a speech in oxford like he is an enlightnment saviour for something that is common sense and had being discussed decades before mixed with everything is to blame to woke culture? Damn thought that oxford had a higher level

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date