IPCC sixth report.

[Mart]

I know some people would have us go on a war footing to solve the climate but i would suggest this is unrealistic.

Unrealistic??? The alternative will be war somewhere down the line anyway once the fight for resources starts.

I'd suggest the time for foot dragging is long past.

Regards

Richard

Yep, taking things slowly (or doing nothing) has backfired badly. In the US they need, and are aiming for, 50% reduction in CO2 by 2030, and 80% reduction in the leccy generation sector. That's a massive challenge, but of course whilst we could have done things slow and steady if we'd started 30-40yrs ago, now it's all hands to the pump, just to reduce the terrible damage and consequences that are now unavoidable.

At least economics is now on our side, with new coal generation in India expected to be uneconomic and a stranded asset by the time current construction is completed. Private financing has now dried up, so construction is only possible with government support.

I assume that the same now applies in China, though to be fair the central Gov is trying to halt coal expansion, but regional powers are still trying to power grab, in more ways than one.

Be nice if the UK Gov expands the size of the 2021 CfD auction pots, and a shame they have dropped the PiG for new BEV's, but tbf the tax incentives for BEV company cars are a massive driver for BEV rollouts, so that's good.

Fingers crossed the Gov will stop playing green, and start acting green. Removing support for blue hydrogen with it's horrific levels of CO2e emissions, before that industry can get a foothold, would be a start, but thinking that the Tories might remove money making schemes for the FF industry ....... now I know I've gone crazee.

[AE-NMidlands]

How do we debate getting something done (which some of us see as a desperate necessity) without straying into politics?
A

[AE-NMidlands]

More media coverage (agreeing with the very 1st post in this thread, too.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssil-fuels

Forget plans to lower emissions by 2050 – this is deadly procrastination - Peter Kalmus

The world has by and large adopted “net zero by 2050” as its de facto climate goal, but two fatal flaws hide in plain sight within those 16 characters. One is “net zero.” The other is “by 2050”.

These two flaws provide cover for big oil and politicians who wish to preserve the status quo. Together they comprise a deadly prescription for inaction and catastrophically high levels of irreversible climate and ecological breakdown.

and finishes with

Due to the decades of inaction dishonestly engineered by fossil fuel executives, the speed and scale now required is staggering. There is no longer any incremental way out. It’s time to grow up and let go of the fantasy that we can get out of this without big changes that affect our lives. Policy steps that seem radical today – for example, proposals to nationalize the fossil fuel industry and ration oil and gas supplies – will seem less radical with each new climate disaster. Climate emergency mode will require personal sacrifice, especially from the high-emitting rich. But civilizational collapse would be unimaginably worse.

As a climate scientist, I am terrified by what I see coming. I want world leaders to stop hiding behind magical thinking and feel the same terror. Then they would finally end fossil fuels.

(my emphasis.)
Our lives cannot go on in the current cushy way.
A

[Bugtownboy]

A, fully agree with you. Unfortunately, it is only a very small minority who appreciate the personal and societal changes that are needed to meet carbon reduction targets.

Time for honesty from our leaders and start to get real.

There again, for many, wearing a mask has almost been the end of civil liberties and their personal freedoms.

As the man said, we live in interesting times. Yes I know, it’s attributed to a never found Chinese Curse, there again, the irony is not lost.

[spread-tee]

It would be a start if the wider population had a bit more understanding of money.

blob:https://embed.ted.com/4e6f5dee-6e86-408 ... e8231bf34d

when out wise leaders talk about not burdening the "taxpayer" with the costs of decarbonising, we should call them out as the bullshitters that they are.

Desp

Sorry about the link, search Stephanie Kelton, the big myth of government deficits on TED talks

PPS this might be a better link,

[Mart]

I do still cling to the hope that the media, and through them, the majority of the population, will start to stress just how serious this all is. I think a lot of people think we can 'beat' AGW, but all measures now are just to reduce the scale of the disaster, not to prevent it.

Such a shame when so many solutions have been around for so long, and in the case of RE, BEV's, heatpumps etc, are actually really good solutions.

[Stinsy]

Even if you assume climate change is inevitable and irreversible, we should be taking urgent steps to slow it down and mitigate its effects.

If we are unwilling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly and substantially enough to meaningfully slowdown climate change, we should be building flood defences, relocating flood/drought prone populations, and taking other steps to mitigate the effects.

But no, our leaders bury their heads, safe in the knowledge these are problems for their successor and the person after that.

[Mart]

Couldn't agree more Stinsy, in fact you may have found a way to encourage folk to get behind spending on addressing AGW (I think, if my memory serves me well) - Folk love a bargain, so we explain how every $1 spent on mitigation is equal to about $7 spent on adaptation (that's the bit I hope I've remembered correctly (hence the $ value)). So we start to tell the public just how enormous the bill will be to adapt to AGW*, and when people get up off the floor, we than suggest a 7x smaller cost of addressing the problem itself.

I appreciate that this involves a lot of number games and psychology, but perhaps 'we' can get those on board who baulk at the expense, by persuading them that it's actually a great deal compared with not doing it?

Just a thought.

*That's technically a falsehood, since failure to mitigate means the adaptation will only get larger and larger.

[Bugtownboy]

Isn’t the elephant in the room the ‘economy’ or at least capitalism/consumerism ? I can’t see how you square reducing carbon emissions without, errr, not making carbon emissions.

It’s our over consumption of resources to fuel our insatiable desire for ‘stuff’, whether it be clothes, food, tech, gadgets, cars, travel etc. that is driving emissions, plus ravaging the environment.

Our western lifestyle, I believe, is no longer compatible with reducing carbon emissions to the level needed to stand still.

Maybe the lizard people want a catastrophe to rebuild again - think of all the stuff they could sell us again.

[Stinsy]

Let's use Phoenix Arizona as an example. A city in a desert climate, today it is 43℃. The average temperature has risen 5℃ since 1950. It supports human habitation only with vast energy expenditure. It will soon be uninhabitable and should (IMO) be evacuated. However its population has doubled from 900k to 1.8m since 1990.