350

[Horace]

Re the Europe thing. Fair point FamilyWiggs but I think there is a fundamental difference. The British are slow to anger and accept as inconveniences the trifles that the French go ballistic about. However, we will go to remarkable lengths when a principle is at stake. French democracy at a national level has historically been a bit of a joke. How many republics to date?

We could of course go on and on about Germans/ Italians the Spanish (Franco anyone?). Someone once explained to me the difference is we that we had a Yeoman farmer class very early on who owned lots of bits of land and got quite upperty when someone (the State) tried to tell them what to do with it. In France pre Revolution the whole lot was owned by about 5 people.

Mind you, technically the Queen still owns all the land in the UK. We just get to "hold" it for a while with her permission (hence freehold etc). Bona vacantia is the last vestige of that in that unclaimed land goes back to the state.

 

[Flyfisher]

The rude thing may be cultural. I am from Yorkshire. Its no excuse but Geoff Boycott seems to get away with it.

Aye, you can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much. :wink:

Pennington was right. Feeding ground up cattle and sheep heads to cows was stupid. The science that showed that it would be wise not to do this was right.

Indeed. And it was known about well before BSE arrived on the map, although the mechanisms are better understood these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29
But it's interesting to consider that although the science was fairly well understood, the extrapolation of its effect does seem to have been rather over-estimated. It's also interesting to consider that the government was quite prepared to impose massive changes on the beef industry to save a few hundred lives yet seems to be reluctant to impose similarly drastic changes to help prevent the collapse of civilisation as we know it. That's probably a timescale issue though; BSE would have been an election issue whereas the collapse of civilisation is safely in the future (i.e. beyond the next couple of general elections).

d) Will what we can do, have an impact upon b) and ultimately a)?

When considering 'what we can do', it's usually in the context of our current capabilities. But what about our ability to develop new capabilities? We all know the massive technological advances that have been made in the last 50 years; who knows what our capabilities will be in another 50 years?

I appreciate this could be construed as a 'wishful thinking' approach to the problem, but if the alternative is turning back the clock 50-100 years then many people will sleep easier believing that those nice scientist people will eventually sort it all out.


PS: FW, you beat me to it with your post about the "gallic shrug"! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[DaveBrigg]

We've been here before with smoking. It took years to persuade the majority that smoking does damage health. I still have discussions with young urchins who tell me that grandad smoked sixty a day and lived to be 95, and so it can't be bad. There are those who know that it does harm, but don't want to change their lifestyle, and there are those who accept that it damages health, but don't see it as the government's job to stop it. The government know that to drastically improve the health of the nation, smoking (and alcohol) should be much more tightly regulated, or banned, but cannot act because of the backlash of public opinion.

On a basis of logic, the argument for drastic reductions in CO2 is clear. If all the scientists are wrong, and we have cut back on energy use unnecessarily, what's the result? A slightly less comfortable lifestyle, and lower fuel bills. Weigh this risk against the risk that the scientists are right.

 

[biffvernon]

But does it not show that what you are saying is not getting through to me or Peter? It's no good pointing the ordinary man in the street to a scientific paper that explains it if he can't understand it.
There can be two sides to the earth is flat arguement, and one would be right and one would be wrong, you saying that there are not two sides to your arguement just makes me think that you can't explain your side, so is it right or is it wrong. Help me understand why the other side is wrong, don't just tell me they are.
Telling me to move on does not bring me onboard, it makes me want to get off.
If the majority of peole were not like me, we would be moving forward, governments would be taking serious steps to do what "you" say needs doing, so as I see it, "I" am the one you need to convince not shrug off.

I'm probably not getting through to you and Peter. I don't know why. I think Peter has, like me, a degree in geology so should be able to read a scientific paper, and you, Graham obviously have more than two brain cells to rub toghether. The Met Office have some good accounts of the subject written for the intelligent layperson. What would it actually take to convince you? I really don't have the time, energy or inclination to write a textbook on climate change on a period property forum.

 

[biffvernon]

@FamilyWiggs
>a) Is it real?
Yes - the science has been clear for decades - parts of the media have got it over the last few years and the politicians are now being won round. A very slow job.

>b)are the impact forecasts accurate?
Take care with your words. There are forecasts, there are projections and there are scenarios. They are different beasts and should not be confused

>c) If the impact forecasts are accurate, what can we do about it?
For example in the scenario that has all the oil and all the coal burnt, we die. What can we do about it? Make sure that scenario does not come to pass.

>d) Will what we can do, have an impact upon b) and ultimately a)?
We can stop burning coal, we can sequester carbon and then we can have a civilization continuing that preserve a lot of nice old houses.

>we have to be confident that it will have an impact upon the problem. Otherwise, we may as well carry on as we are and enjoy the time we have, and hope a) and b) are wrong after all or that science comes up trumps with a solution.
I'm not confident at all that we have sufficient time left to have a big enough impact but I am confident that if we carry on as we are we die. It's not a good position to be in but it's reality.

>I think much of the scepticism from many of us is that our small changes in carbon output will be far outweighed by the rest of the developing world developing and using more carbon and dooming us all anyway.
That's not really scepticism, more a feeling of hopelessness in the face of unstoppable forces. Quite understandable. How an individual reacts depends on one's personal moral paradigm. Do you have the sort of altruism that will allow you to act in favour of future generations even if self-sacrifice is involved. I guess I'm at an advantage there because the sort of things I really value most, nature, art, culture, old buildings, personal relationships etc. are all completely compatible with a zero-carbon lifestyle and might even be enhanced if everyone had lived similarly. Kinda win-win.

>At which point you come back in and exhort us to show leadership to the rest of the world
We have to act locally so it behoves us to influence our politicians. They in turn speak to other nations. The UK has a population whose carbon footprint is amongst the highest in the world (is it 10 or 20 time the Indian's?) And with a historical perspective, the UK, inventor of the industrial revolution, has done more than most nations to cause the problem. It's probably arrogant pf us to think we can show leadership, but showing a bit of example would be good.

 

[biffvernon]

I wonder if a more viable comparison would be with the failure to predict major events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunami?

Nice thought but no. We really are completely hopeless at predicting earthquakes beyond saying this is a pretty safe area while this area is pretty dodgy and it's about time there was a big 'un.

 

[Flyfisher]

On a basis of logic, the argument for drastic reductions in CO2 is clear. If all the scientists are wrong, and we have cut back on energy use unnecessarily, what's the result? A slightly less comfortable lifestyle, and lower fuel bills. Weigh this risk against the risk that the scientists are right.

I take the basic point, but am not sure about 'slightly less confortable lifestyle'. I've been reading about the need to cut carbon emissions by 80% within a few decades to stabilise the climate. If that really can be done with a 'slightly less comfortable lifestyle' then I would like to think most people would accept it, or could be persuaded with some gentle prodding. But I can't see how this could be currently achieved without a drastic reduced lifestyle, and therein lies the problem, I believe. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

 

[JoceAndChris]

We haven't really talked about what the effects would be if all fossil fuel burning was globally banned as of tomorrow. We speak of the future collapse of civilisation if global warning carries out the dire destruction Biff predicts. But what would happen to world economies, jobs etc if the climate campaigners got their way? Surely that would engender just as much of a collapse in civilisation. The whole foundation of our lives would just be gone. It just isn't realistic. It strikes me that only little steps towards reducing our carbon footprint are possible, and, as we keep saying, they might be woefully inadequate.

You know I've said before I find it really hard to engage with the year, say, 2300. I feel so much more connection to the past. It would be really impossible for me for example to switch off the Rayburn, because of altruistic concern for the folk of 2300. I really don't think I'm out-of-the-ordinary selfish in expressing this view, just honest. The only way you'd get me to switch off that Rayburn in the winter is through legislation, and let's face it, legislation on that scale would lead to bloodshed and sheer chaos.

Has anyone read Julie Bertagna's Exodus? It's written for a teenage readership but it's a brilliantly executed vision of a future dystopia in which most of the world is underwater, apart from the privileged few who live in these extraordinary sky towers. The story focuses on the poor refugees who live like sewer rats and are at their wits' end to find ways to penetrate the sky towers: many are of course killed as the towers are full to capacity and no mercy is shown to the ever increasing hordes of people arriving in boats from drowning lands. I thoroughly recommend it for any teenager or anyone who enjoys excellent children's literature.

But it remains just a story - and that's the problem with this whole thing, it's a future, possible story, not a crisis that is impacting on our lives right now.

 

[Moo]

global warning

Sums it all up, dunnit?

 

[JoceAndChris]

:lol: Certainly does! Not a typo I'll edit!

 

[Pford75]

I think Peter has, like me, a degree in geology

Not sure if that was a misremembering or a facetious comment....

I don't have a geology degree - my degree and MSC and PhD are in Computer Science, and my road safety badge is from Tufty Club.

Academia and business has taught me to question - which is what I am doing. I'm not pro or anti. I just dislike being lectured by some (not you Biff) who adopt a holier than thou attitude and patronise those of us who are very capable of independant thought.

If I really, truly believed that CO2 emissions would bring about the end of the world (as some claim to believe), why do they not do everything in their power to reduce those emissions? If I were faced with a clear threat to the life of my family and myself, then I can't imagine what things I wouldn't do to protect them....but yet people who claim to be total believers still use cars, still take flights, still use electricity. I conclude that ::

1. They don't truly believe
2. They do believe but it won't affect them, in which case their own CO2 emission is okay
3. They are unwilling to bear the lifestyle impacts of adopting the changes necessary

The answer is probably '3' - it's just that we all draw the line somewhere differently to suit our own lifestyle. Biff - you drive a small car and don't fly, some of us insulate our lofts but still fly for business or holidays and others still maintain their international jet-set lifestyle to film premiers or run a huge ranch in the US.

Trouble is, who gets to decide who is important enough to still fly around or drive a car?

To Joce's point - Much of my work in Africa and the Middle East is about using technology to bring education to those who have never had the benefit before, or enabling remote medical diagnosis in areas where skilled doctors are scarce, or even just simply bring the internet that we use for these debates to those who have never experienced it before. None of these things would be possible without me doing the significant number of airmiles I do every year - so let's not pretend that cutting these emissions is painless. People will die or suffer dramatically reduced standards of living as a result and the impact will be felt in the short term.....that's why many people choose to wait and see.

 

[JoceAndChris]

let's not pretend that cutting these emissions is painless. People will die or suffer dramatically reduced standards of living as a result and the impact will be felt in the short term.....that's why many people choose to wait and see.

Absolutely. What else can we do but wait and see? Have interesting debates, I suppose, and assuage our consciences with some small trivial sacrifice - cabbage not rambutan, Norfolk holidays not Madagascar. But I don't for a second believe that all the local cabbage I eat will make a scrap of difference to those much speculated about people of 2300. In their hearts I think most people feel that it's de rigeur to be seen to be making some sort of effort towards a greener lifestyle, without having much knowledge or understanding of the issues involved, and without the least intention to undergo any real suffering.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I've been reading about the need to cut carbon emissions by 80% within a few decades to stabilise the climate. If that really can be done with a 'slightly less comfortable lifestyle' then I would like to think most people would accept it, or could be persuaded with some gentle prodding. But I can't see how this could be currently achieved without a drastic reduced lifestyle, and therein lies the problem, I believe. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

It's worse than that FF - an 80% global reduction, balanced against the inescapable and undeniable demands of developing nations to acquire First World lifestyles leading to significant global economic development and consequent massive increase in energy consumption, would mean a much more than 80% reduction locally to offset the rest of the increases.

The answer seems not to be to reduce energy consumption (which is impossible to achieve set against inevitable global development), but to replace coal/oil as the source of that energy - nuclear was one answer, but the green lobby seemed unkeen last time I looked. Renewables are increasing. No doubt someone will invent fusion engines or a perpetual sterling engine or something else not yet conceived.

Hopefully.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Incidentally Biff, is it the rate at which we are burning carbon-based fuels which is the issue, or the total absolute amount of carbon eventually put in the atmosphere?

In other words, are all our carbon-efficiency schemes (loft insulation, etc) simply delaying a little bit the inevtiable effect of burning all our coal/gas - or is there a sustainable rate of burn (and have I thus missed the point of a thread called 350 ?)

 

[Penners]

I think much of the scepticism from many of us (Penners possibly excluded, I don't know!), is that our small changes in carbon output will be far outweighed by the rest of the developing world developing and using more carbon and dooming us all anyway.

You have me summed up quite well, FW. I'm not sure whether I'm in two minds or not. :wink:

I'm afraid Horace just pushed my grumpy button with his "the rest of the world agrees with me, not you" assertion. I am still sceptical about a number of aspects of the whole Climate Change issue, but while I may disagree with Biff from time-to-time on both content and presentation, I also have to acknowledge his far greater depth of knowledge and understanding of the whole topic. (Greater than my own, that is).

 

[Flyfisher]

It's worse than that FF - an 80% global reduction, balanced against the inescapable and undeniable demands of developing nations to acquire First World lifestyles leading to significant global economic development and consequent massive increase in energy consumption, would mean a much more than 80% reduction locally to offset the rest of the increases.

Good point. I've recently read that India has been pushing 'the polluter pays' principle quite strongly, effective saying how dare we tell them to reduce their growth in emissions just because 'the west' has already clogged the atmosphere with CO2 and that we should bear the brunt of the reductions. They certainly have a point there. But, even ignoring the practicalities, we can't do better than a 100% reduction, i.e. cease any fossil-fuel usage, which doesn't really seem a great deal more than the 80% reportedly required. In other words, we've already screwed things up too much - unless we can come up with some fantastic sequestration technology and actualy remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

The answer seems not to be to reduce energy consumption (which is impossible to achieve set against inevitable global development), but to replace coal/oil as the source of that energy - nuclear was one answer, but the green lobby seemed unkeen last time I looked. Renewables are increasing. No doubt someone will invent fusion engines or a perpetual sterling engine or something else not yet conceived.

I agree. It seems inconceivable that we can (or will) easily reduce our energy consumption beyond the easy pickings so alternative sources are the only answer, although with nuclear energy apparently off the agenda what are we left with? Perhaps we'll see a breakthrough in fusion energy, but it's been a long time coming.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I don't necessarily agree with the detail, but the trend seems obvious, as (I'm afraid) is the root cause of the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

 

[FamilyWiggs]

In terms of carbon output - how important is human exhalation (O2 in, CO2 out)? I only ask because human population has doubled in the past 50 years or so and is projected to increase by 50% over the next 30 years or so.

That is three times (3bn to 9bn) as many of us exhaling CO2 in less than 100 years - by my reckoning that is 6bn x 12 = an additional 72bn lungfuls of CO2 every minute going into the atmosphere.

Or am I being daft?

 

[Flyfisher]

It's certainly not daft to think about such things but I don't think exhaled CO2 is the issue. In this respect, humans are like a wood stove; yes they release CO2 but the carbon thus released must have come from the food we eat, which utimately has fixed the carbon from the atmosphere in the first place. So, as an organism, we're carbon neutral (although there is the slight issue about the fuel we use to cook our food!).

I was curious what the amount exhaled by the global population would be and started to work it out with a spread sheet (how geeky is that ) then realised that the web would have the answer, and so it proved. Lot's of info on this topic but this one seems like a good summary: http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C53/

I also found this article about a pending mini ice-age due to start anytime now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ray-of-hope-can-the-sun-save-us-from-global-warming-762878.html.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Thanks FF - both links were interesting.