Climate Change

[Crazyfool01]

LA wildfires might make a few of the rich sit up and think ... maybe im just being optimistic though 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

LA wildfires might make a few of the rich sit up and think ... maybe im just being optimistic though 

ok, well this isn't the first time...and US has been subject to multiple extreme weather events over the years...which are both normal in a singular event and not normal in the rate of them...but they just voted in Trump who wants to get rid of the wind turbines because bad for wildlife and use more fossil fuels because they are a gift from god.

Net zero always required a great deal of sacrifice which obviously populations everywhere are unwilling to make, so we're just going to have to hope technology does the job.

[steviewevie]

 

[Skip997]

The best we can hope for is that we very quickly get our act together in order to prevent things getting completely horrendous. 
 

It’s way too late for any thing else. Can’t see it happening though as everyone will have to very significantly change their lifestyle and sadly there’s a huge number who refuse to accept it as man made despite the overwhelming evidence 

[steviewevie]

25 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The best we can hope for is that we very quickly get our act together in order to prevent things getting completely horrendous. 
 

It’s way too late for any thing else. Can’t see it happening though as everyone will have to very significantly change their lifestyle and sadly there’s a huge number who refuse to accept it as man made despite the overwhelming evidence 

even if believe it's man made and know something to be done, when comes down to it too many don't want to make sacrifices to their lifestyles, from consuming less meat to flying less to turning down their thermostats to paying higher energy bills. I think it will need to tech, and investment.

[kerplunk]

If only it was a case of 'fat' westerners needing to change our lifetsyles

 

I read yesterday India has doubled it's coal burning electricity generation in the last 10yrs and their coal fleet produces more kw than the EU's entire output. But it's still a relatively poor population - difficult to tell them they need to change their lifestyles.

 

We hope that China's awesome fossil fuel consumption will merely 'peak' soon.

 

Is it cool to hope Africa doesn't do a China?

 

I don't see Russia doing much to reduce their huge fossil fuel consumption and lots of poverty outside the cities

 

I'm not trying to deflect rather pointing at the global picture which is sobering. The west needs to lead the way for sure, but it's a much bigger problem than what the west does - if only it was that simple

Edited 6 hours ago by kerplunk

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

37 minutes ago, kerplunk said:

If only it was a case of 'fat' westerners needing to change our lifetsyles

 

I read yesterday India has doubled it's coal burning electricity generation in the last 10yrs and their coal fleet produces more kw than the EU's entire output. But it's still a relatively poor population - difficult to tell them they need to change their lifestyles.

 

We hope that China's awesome fossil fuel consumption will merely 'peak' soon.

 

Is it cool to hope Africa doesn't do a China?

 

I don't see Russia doing much to reduce their huge fossil fuel consumption and lots of poverty outside the cities

 

I'm not trying to deflect rather pointing at the global picture which is sobreing. The west needs to lead the way for sure, but it's a much bigger problem than what the west does - if only it was that simple

us fat westerners have done the damage that is affecting climate now...those pesky developing countries with massive populations are doing damage that will f**k it all up in the future.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, kerplunk said:

If only it was a case of 'fat' westerners needing to change our lifetsyles

 

I read yesterday India has doubled it's coal burning electricity generation in the last 10yrs and their coal fleet produces more kw than the EU's entire output. But it's still a relatively poor population - difficult to tell them they need to change their lifestyles.

 

We hope that China's awesome fossil fuel consumption will merely 'peak' soon.

 

Is it cool to hope Africa doesn't do a China?

 

I don't see Russia doing much to reduce their huge fossil fuel consumption and lots of poverty outside the cities

 

I'm not trying to deflect rather pointing at the global picture which is sobreing. The west needs to lead the way for sure, but it's a much bigger problem than what the west does - if only it was that simple

In defense of China, they're rapidly decarbonising and are also sponsoring infrastructure building projects in other countries to decarbonise. The CCP has decided global warming is a priority issue (or whatever term they use) and is arguably the most influential driving force to reduce fossil fuel use globally between their political and economic power. The lack of democracy also means that now they've decided it it's getting done very rapidly. (this isn't a defense of totalitarianism, just a comment that they can shift gear faster)

 

You're completely right about India though. 1.4bn people and coal, oil, and gas burning all on the rise. They've been buying all the fossil fuels from Russia that Europe wouldn't on top of everything else in an attempt to rapidly industrialise and catch up in output to the West and China.

 

It's largely corporate output in USA, Russia, India that is the big problem going forward (it has been in China for decades and probably will be for 5 more years or so). Sure we as consumers can make small adjustments that will also have an impact on demand for different products, but we need the governments of USA, Russia, India, to try and control/impact their own industry, which with their current leaders isn't going to happen.

 

What's annoying is that if there were the political will, it could probably shift it quite rapidly. The USA dealt with acid rain really effectively, not by banning it, but by creating a "pollution credits" system that gave strict fines around different tiers of ozone damaging pollution. The industrial complex responded by rapidly researching and implementing the technology to shift their pollution output instead of buying these credits. I can't help but think a similar system could be adopted for carbon output. At least in the USA.

[Nobody Interesting]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

In defense of China, they're rapidly decarbonising and are also sponsoring infrastructure building projects in other countries to decarbonise. The CCP has decided global warming is a priority issue (or whatever term they use) and is arguably the most influential driving force to reduce fossil fuel use globally between their political and economic power. The lack of democracy also means that now they've decided it it's getting done very rapidly. (this isn't a defense of totalitarianism, just a comment that they can shift gear faster)

 

You're completely right about India though. 1.4bn people and coal, oil, and gas burning all on the rise. They've been buying all the fossil fuels from Russia that Europe wouldn't on top of everything else in an attempt to rapidly industrialise and catch up in output to the West and China.

 

It's largely corporate output in USA, Russia, India that is the big problem going forward (it has been in China for decades and probably will be for 5 more years or so). Sure we as consumers can make small adjustments that will also have an impact on demand for different products, but we need the governments of USA, Russia, India, to try and control/impact their own industry, which with their current leaders isn't going to happen.

 

What's annoying is that if there were the political will, it could probably shift it quite rapidly. The USA dealt with acid rain really effectively, not by banning it, but by creating a "pollution credits" system that gave strict fines around different tiers of ozone damaging pollution. The industrial complex responded by rapidly researching and implementing the technology to shift their pollution output instead of buying these credits. I can't help but think a similar system could be adopted for carbon output. At least in the USA.

 

I said many years ago China would beat everyone else to it and then when they do the rest would find other excuses for not doing what they need to do.

I see nothing going on to change that opinion nor my opinion that the world will get a whole heap worse with huge areas unliveable before most countries bother to think about trying.

 

I just hope science saves the human race, cos the human race is certainly not that bothered about saving itself.

[steviewevie]

[kerplunk]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

In defense of China, they're rapidly decarbonising and are also sponsoring infrastructure building projects in other countries to decarbonise. The CCP has decided global warming is a priority issue (or whatever term they use) and is arguably the most influential driving force to reduce fossil fuel use globally between their political and economic power. The lack of democracy also means that now they've decided it it's getting done very rapidly. (this isn't a defense of totalitarianism, just a comment that they can shift gear faster)

 

You're completely right about India though. 1.4bn people and coal, oil, and gas burning all on the rise. They've been buying all the fossil fuels from Russia that Europe wouldn't on top of everything else in an attempt to rapidly industrialise and catch up in output to the West and China.

 

It's largely corporate output in USA, Russia, India that is the big problem going forward (it has been in China for decades and probably will be for 5 more years or so). Sure we as consumers can make small adjustments that will also have an impact on demand for different products, but we need the governments of USA, Russia, India, to try and control/impact their own industry, which with their current leaders isn't going to happen.

 

What's annoying is that if there were the political will, it could probably shift it quite rapidly. The USA dealt with acid rain really effectively, not by banning it, but by creating a "pollution credits" system that gave strict fines around different tiers of ozone damaging pollution. The industrial complex responded by rapidly researching and implementing the technology to shift their pollution output instead of buying these credits. I can't help but think a similar system could be adopted for carbon output. At least in the USA.

 

 

Good post.

 

The rhetoric coming out of the US at the moment has rekindled my old fatalistic side somewhat, but I don't want to be that way - it will pass 🙂

 

 

 

[kerplunk]

Interesting paper:

 

Ignitions explain more than temperature or precipitation in driving Santa Ana wind fires.

 

Abstract

Autumn and winter Santa Ana wind (SAW)–driven wildfires play a substantial role in area burned and societal losses in southern California. Temperature during the event and antecedent precipitation in the week or month prior play a minor role in determining area burned. Burning is dependent on wind intensity and number of human-ignited fires. Over 75% of all SAW events generate no fires; rather, fires during a SAW event are dependent on a fire being ignited. Models explained 40 to 50% of area burned, with number of ignitions being the strongest variable. One hundred percent of SAW fires were human caused, and in the past decade, powerline failures have been the dominant cause. Future fire losses can be reduced by greater emphasis on maintenance of utility lines and attention to planning urban growth in ways that reduce the potential for powerline ignitions.

 

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abh2262

 

 

[steviewevie]

It's winter, it's not going to be due to the heat. The dry weather and strong winds has been the reason it's spread so dramatically.