IPCC Synthesis Report

[biffvernon]

how many of us would be willing to give up a big proportion of our personal wealth, i.e. something that would materially reduce our standard of living?

Maybe that's not quite the right question. It ought to be:
How many of us would be willing to give up a big proportion of our personal wealth, knowing that others were doing likewise and the consequence of not so doing was the imperilment of civilization?

Nice websites JanieB but the first link should be http://coinet.org.uk/

(Do you know Stig?)

 

[middi]

Catch 22 situation here.

We love to live within democratically elected governments because, we believe, it gives us freedom of movement, speech and choises. Brilliant, that is what is good for us.(?)

We preach and try to indoctrinate to the rest of the world that this is the way forward,

Gradually, and with great reluctance, we are admitting that scoffing ourselves on the fossil reserves of mother earth may not be such a good thing after all.

Because of our extremely evident Hypocritical nature, we are now very reluctan to cast the first stone and we are toying by sparmodically throwing tiny beach pebles at each other to show that we care (?)

As soon as we realise that is a bit too late, we will start slinging massive BOLDERS at each other.

Einstein could have been right after all, when he said that the next world war will be contested with sticks and stones, provided that Darwin was right in that the fittest will survive in order to fight it.

At school we should have been learning that by "sucking" the planet dry would have serious consequeces to our salvation not RE as we were told.

Still, it is not too late, especially if we demand from our elected governments to arrest anybody that wishes to move about on any other form of transport other than their feet.
( I wonder what would be the highest running speed a criminal could achieve after 500 years of evolution ??? )

WE need forced, and intelligent education on this global warming matter, not just playing at it just for appearance sake.

 

[JanieB]

Biff
I took the URL straight from their leaflet. I realise now it changes when you type it in.

No, I've never heard of Stig. That is a very informative and helpful website, thankyou. There's no indication, that I can see in a quick look, as to who he really is or how to contact him.

 

[biffvernon]

We love to live within democratically elected governments because, we believe, it gives us freedom of movement, speech and choices.

Not quite. I'd love to drive where I like but I've helped elect a government to force me, and everyone else, to drive on the left. My freedom is limited by the government, but I recognize that in the grand scheme of things it is to my advantages to be so constrained.
So we can democratically elect a government that forces us to stop burning fossil fuel. It will make us poorer in the short term but we can see that, ultimately, it is to our advantage.

 

[biffvernon]

There's no indication, that I can see in a quick look, as to who he really is or how to contact him.

On the left of the page, bottom of first list:

Contact Stig
If you wish to contact me, please email: s (at) shtig (dot) net

(my nephew)

 

[middi]

Exactly, Biff, WE have got to elect this type of beneficial and totally earth friendly government.

Firstly we need enough seriousely committed candidates that, rain or shine, stick to the fundementals by which they intend to be elected

Secondly we need enough committed voters to keep them there

( of course we all now this)

at least is a start provided that the majority of the world 6 billion people think the same

 

[Flyfisher]

Not quite. I'd love to drive where I like but I've helped elect a government to force me, and everyone else, to drive on the left. My freedom is limited by the government, but I recognize that in the grand scheme of things it is to my advantages to be so constrained.

The problem with that analogy is that there is no downside to driving on the left (or right), only an upside. So, of course, no one has a problem with this 'loss of freedom'. But until there is a way of fully replacing them, giving up fossil fuels will have a serious downside and people will resist, even if it means denying the problem - people are good at ignoring future risks.

So we can democratically elect a government that forces us to stop burning fossil fuel. It will make us poorer in the short term but we can see that, ultimately, it is to our advantage.

In theory, yes, we could do this but, for some reason we don't. Perhaps it's a fundamental flaw in the human psyche; one that might result in our total demise. We would simply join the list of millions of other species that have become extinct.

Firstly we need enough seriousely committed candidates that, rain or shine, stick to the fundementals by which they intend to be elected

I don't think there's a shortage of 'Green Party' candidates in our elections but they seem to have limited success. Presumably for the same reasons we're facing these problems in the first place.

provided that the majority of the world 6 billion people think the same

Or 9 billion by 2050. Think about it - on the one hand the general view is that we need to cut back (or, in the extreme, eliminate) our use of fossil fuels and on the other hand, within just 43 years, the world is going to have to support 50% more people than it does right now.

I really don't believe asking people to reduce their standard of living, or their aspirations of a better one, will ever work. I think the way forward must be to find a solution to wean us off fossil fuels without reducing peoples standard of living. We need alternatives not abstinence.

 

[Penners]

[I really don't believe asking people to reduce their standard of living, or their aspirations of a better one, will ever work. I think the way forward must be to find a solution to wean us off fossil fuels without reducing peoples standard of living. We need alternatives not abstinence.

I absolutely agree. Ideals can be pitched as high as we like, but ultimately pragmatism will rule. The only solutions that people at large will accept are those that don't make a major detrimental impact on their standard of living...

... or that don't appear to.

I'm not saying that's what we should do. I just believe, like FF, that the developed population of the planet won't vote for anything else - even with the water lapping round their ankles.

 

[middi]

The fossil fuel "lake", or any lake of any size for that matter, will eventually run dry if one keeps removing water from it. It makes no difference to the totally emptying fact regardless if a tea spoon a bucket or the 24 inch plug is removed.

I entirely agree that the race is really on between the method and quantity we extract without creating serious irreversible climate damage and the dire need of renewable energy, without rocking the boat too much on the " creature comfort" front. Everybody should be happy then.

We need more specific information as to how this can be achieved . It appears to be a " wait and see" attitude that prevails. If this is the case, then any idiot knows that the S**T will hit the fan.

Once again, if this is the current scenario, then we should be reminded in the srongest possible terms and not find out by default. Now, that would be totally irresponsible.

 

[Pford75]

we demand from our elected governments to arrest anybody that wishes to move about on any other form of transport other than their feet

So, when your child is dying and requires an ambulance...you'd be happy to wait for someone to walk to their rescue and then carry them to hospital?

I don't mean to be facetious, but it is exactly this sort of comment (let's all walk everywhere), which completely overlooks the social benefits of many of the things which consume energy.

To pursue the path of energy consumption reduction, will cause untold suffering, hardship and death for many. (Although I accept the view that a failure to find a solution will do the same to many more people in the future).

So, perhaps we just need to decide who is expendable?

 

[Penners]

So, perhaps we just need to decide who is expendable?

Aaah - that sounds like a topic for an entire (and very long) thread of its own. :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

To pursue the path of energy consumption reduction, will cause untold suffering, hardship and death for many

I doubt that.

If I turn off the computer now I will consume less energy.

If the two people in our village turn off the exterior lighting they have burning all day and night that will reduce consumption. As will turning off the streetlamp which isn't necessary either.

As for the people in the newbuild who have several lamps on stalks lighting up the garden and lights playfully highlighting the rockery etc, maybe they could do without too, as there is another streetlamp bathing the whole thing in electric light.

How many empty offices in Lunnon are still lit up at night, computer screens flickering?

I bet we could all reduce consumption considerably if we made an effort.

And we could ban this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TD4g0gmQSLk

 

[Pford75]

Agree with you on reduction.....perhaps I should have said 'meaningful' reduction.

ie. To stop the spread of vehicles in the developing world, to halt the construction of airports in China, to double the price of heating oil in the UK.

The reduction measures you mention would be entirely voluntary...we've all seen that this doesn't occur voluntarily....the gov't seems intent on using taxes to change people's behaviour.....but taxes on energy don't discriminate between tacky Xmas decorations and electric storage heaters for little old ladies......they all go up in price.

In fact, I'd argue that if someone can afford 100's of pounds on decorations, they are unlikely to worry about price increases....but someone living in poverty will certainly feel the impact. So, my point is....are they more expendable?

 

[middi]

I wonder how this population ( british isles) would react if Gordon Brown would announce that private transport from january 2009 must not be larger than 750cc powered.

This should be fast enough to get us safely about our business,
Immediately reduce carbon emission by at least 50% in this sector of motorised transport, and more important, we could still ferry our sick children to hospitals.

Well, I wonder how many people would put their hands up in favour. Gordon Brown could easily do this, but due to other economic pressures this would create he won't. We all thrive at this knowledge and feel safe at the horrible thought of having to get rid of our gas guzling machines. If we educate ourselves by not buying anything bigger than 750 cc powered , for example, we would take the initiative and not indulge in passing the buck. If we are happy, any government has to be happy othewise they would not be in power.

WE are in charge of OUR future.
We are consuming, and manufacturing will only produce what we can consume. The buck stops with the individual I believe.

 

[Flyfisher]

Someone living in poverty is likely to have a low carbon footprint, so it seems a bit harsh to make them expendable for doing little eco-harm. In fact, more poverty would reduce CO2 emissions no end. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

To stop the spread of vehicles in the developing world, to halt the construction of airports in China,

We carry on flying but Johnny Foreigner mustn't. Hmmmm...

The end of the cheap oil age is not necessarily the end of all movement. The plug-in hybrid is clearly the way to go as regards cars.

More from the ever versatile lad: http://www.thehybriddebate.com/blog/user/chris_vernon/

 

[worms]

if Gordon Brown would announce that private transport from january 2009 must not be larger than 750cc powered.

Just the sort of thing GB would do - restrict technological progress by legislating for the means rather than the end. Far better to set limits that directly relate to the problem - like no cars emitting more than 100g CO2 per Km.

 

[biffvernon]

The more far-sighted approach is to give support to plug-in hybrid as a step towards pure plug-in electric vehicles. It allows cars to use renewably generated electricity and act as a massive distributed storage system. See link given above for details if you want to stray seriously away from Period Properties.

 

[Penners]

The more far-sighted approach is to give support to plug-in hybrid.

Do I infer from that statement that today's hybrids (Prius, etc) are not rechargeable from the mains - that they can only recharge their batteries with their own on-board ICE?

If that's correct, it seems crazy. How difficult would it be to provide an additional on-board battery charger and mains lead?

Mind you, I suppose the corollary of that is the assumption that mains electricity is more eco-friendly than that generated locally by an ICE. Is that the case?

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, the existing Prius and similar are not plug-in. They decrease the carbon emissions of a petrol engine to something more like a diesel. It's a step, but only a small step. The real gains come with the next generation, the plug-in hybrid. That gives the oportunity of using electricity. Big power stations are more efficient than internal combustion engines, but of course the goal must be to have the electricity generated by wind/wave/tide/solar/biomass.