Code RED - the end maybe nigh!

[Marvin]

3 hours ago, markc said:

Answer to climate change is pretty simple really, 50% cut in population.

I wonder how many climate activists would volunteer to do their bit.

That's the problem. Global solutions require global action. No good me having no children if next door has 4.

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

 

The quickest way to achieve that is to make everyone rich, which minimises the need for "children for security".

So all rich? So all have the same. So all average???

 

No chance of success with that idea with humans. 

 

[Carrerahill]

16 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Today has been a depressing day and so I thought I would express my frustration and see how we feel. The 'CODE RED' report from the IPCC (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf) is not the reason for my depression but rather it brings into sharp (no pun intended) focus the challenges we just are not facing up to and our principal politicians (not leaders because leaders are able to make, explain and garner a following around difficult decisions) seem incapable of facing the facts , developing the options, choosing the path, getting us all aboard and making the changes we clearly need before we incinerate ourselves.

 

Even if you subscribe to the ideas circulated by Nick Bostrum (and many others before and since) that we are living in a simulation - created by a super intelligence to simulate the actions of their forbears, perhaps prior to a subsequent extinction event as one could see it - IE there is nothing watching this simulation any more, it seems that we have found a way of breaking the simulator!

 

Also hoping the super intelligence will offer a simple reboot is perhaps far fetched given that we are just expendable avatars of their forbears and they are watching how the simulation plays out or they are just not watching any more and the simulation just keeps on running in the supercomputer they invented - although a few seconds later they invented a better / faster computer but are / were using it for more important things.  

 

So we need to get this fixed or perhaps we don't - discuss!

The issue is that Great Britain will do and are doing their bit, however, we contribute such a small amount to the problem even if we came up with the ultimate solution, the world would still fall to pieces if left unchecked.

 

We must lean heavily on India, China etc. they must get their house in order.

 

I do my bit by not buying cheaply made tat, particularly from China, I have a real dislike of materials, read earths resources, being use to make poor quality things be it a radio or a house.

 

If the planet gives us resources to make or build something, we owe it to the planet and humankind to use those materials effectively, efficiently and in a way which guarantees longevity.

 

I would, tomorrow, given half the chance ban all throw away type party accessories, balloons, plastic rubbish, solar garden lights sold in supermarkets and DIY stores and frankly just **** we don't need.

 

Here is an example of the problems we face/create - I pick this example because as an argument it holds water and it is relatable and something we can do at home.

 

On Christmas day I have come to expect a dining table likes of that the Queen would sit at, placed on the table is family silverware dating back over a century, plates and bone china over 125 years old, silver candlestick holders, crystal and silver flower holders holding locally sourced seasonal foliage etc. (Holly & pine from the garden, perhaps some Poinsettia from the florist), the table cloths and runners are cotton and silk. The table looks a million pounds but uses things that will be used for decades to come and in some cases these items may have seen over 100 Christmases. Then on the flip side you get the table made up with loads of junk that will get tossed in a bin on Boxing day. This is an issue. We do not need it, we did without it up until 40 odd years ago and all we have done is cheapen our "decorations". 

 

When I buy Christmas lights I but the most expensive I can from manufactures I recognise, I am hoping to get a commercial string of warm white LED soon for Christmas, they will cost about £80 but should last 25 years and are serviceable. I have a set of multicoloured green string Christmas lights which are 21 years old and are still used every year. I bought a set of warm white LED's 7 years ago which go on the Christmas tree every year, we used the same pine tree 2 years in a row and planted it out this year as it is nearly 9 foot tall now. The previous collection are in pots or planted. Some may say I am cheap, some may say I am wise and saving the planet. I would agree with both counts! But seriously we can have beautiful thing without waste. 

 

We must start looking at things and thinking, do I need that. I saw there was a shortage of paddling pools this year, what happened to all the paddling pools bought last year when there was a shortage too? Well, I will tell you what happened, they are so cheap and "throwaway" that they got left in gardens up and down the country and tossed in the wheelie bin by about November. Why are they so cheap? Charge £25-40 for one and people will maybe think about wasting them.

 

Don't get me started on youths at festivals with tents. All tents, minimum £60 and worth the money - that will hopefully solve that issue.

 

Why are kettles £9 in Argos? I went and bought a Bosch kettle and toaster for our new kitchen, however, only when the old stuff died. The old Russel Hobbs one literally blew up, so I binned it and bought the Bosch one, the toaster didn't make it to the new kitchen and caught fire in the old kitchen burning out the elements, it was very tired, but it gave good service and it was replaced with a Bosch one to match the kettle. I expect long service from these. I hope the earths resources were used wisely. I moved our integrated dishwasher into the new kitchen, it is a Siemens unit, I stripped it out the old kitchen and gave it such a deep clean my wife thought it was new when installed in the new kitchen. I even serviced and checked it out electrically and mechanically, deep cleaning the waste pipe etc. If it goes wrong I will fix it. 2 years ago I replaced the run capacitor on the pump. 

 

We waste SO much. Stop the waste and we could burn petrol and diesel till our hearts content!

Edited August 10, 2021 by Carrerahill

[Carrerahill]

3 hours ago, markc said:

Answer to climate change is pretty simple really, 50% cut in population.

I wonder how many climate activists would volunteer to do their bit.

Agreed 100%.

 

Reduce the population and all the earths issues are solved.

 

Covid was the earths way of trying that - it failed because nature didn't expect Astrazeneca and Pfizer to come along! Something will get us though. 

 

There should be no social support for any more than 2 children. Give them the cash, they will have the kids without a care in the world! Those of us who pay our way in life will self regulate because more kids = more cash! 

 

The real population problem countries will need another strategy mind you. 

 

China actually had the right idea, they just didn't make it work very well in their commie way.

 

I am not controversial, I just say it like it is. 

[Ferdinand]

Quote

  

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

The quickest way to achieve that is to make everyone rich, which minimises the need for "children for security".

So all rich? So all have the same. So all average???

 

No chance of success with that idea with humans. 

 

 

@Marvin

 

Rich enough to feel secure.

 

It's a soundbite, but there is a correlation between growing wealth and falling fertility, especially in developing countries.

 

Check the numbers for say South Korea after WW2, Bangladesh in the last 20-25 years, or many others.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_fertility_rate

 

Which makes it about development, and in particular low energy development. Given that it is some advanced countries who are demonstrating creating increasingly more income per unit of emissions, that suggests that the different demands can perhaps be met together.

 

Ferdinand

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

in particular low energy development

Does not have to be low energy, energy is not the enermy.

Fatih Birol interview: Using energy isn’t evil – creating emissions is

 

People think using more energy is a bad thing, says International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol – but as long as we can make it cleanly, it needn’t be

 

 

ENVIRONMENT 4 August 2021

By Adam Vaughan

Adam Vaughan: How do we need to change the world’s energy systems to reach net-zero emissions by 2050?

Fatih Birol: Between now and 2030, we have to make the most of the existing clean energy technologies: solar, wind, electric cars, energy efficiency. But this alone is not enough. To use renewables at a maximum level, in an economically efficient way, requires more than having solar photovoltaic panels and windmills. We need strong and distributed grids and storage – in batteries, hydrogen and hydropower.

I think there is not enough attention on the second part. It is a major handicap of our push for renewable energies.

 

Energy special

How we can transform our energy system to achieve net-zero emissions
How to understand world energy use – in 10 graphs
How the fossil fuel era ends – and four possibilities for what follows

Some 50 per cent of the reductions to reach net zero in 2050 will need to come from technologies not on the market today. We have a very short period to innovate those technologies, such as hydrogen, batteries and carbon capture, utilisation and storage. We will also need clean-energy technologies in the industrial sector, from cement to steel. [Use of] unabated coal, oil and gas will need to be extremely minimal. This is a major point. A total transformation of the energy system is needed, a Herculean task.

How far off-track are we?

 

We are not only off-track, the gap is widening and widening. With the rebound of the [global] economy, we expect an increase of about 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions this year, which would be the second largest increase in history. Most [emissions reduction] pledges are lacking what specific energy policies will be put in place, and how those policies will be financed.

It will be much more difficult and much more costly if we do not start to abate emissions as soon as possible. For me, the biggest challenge is coal in Asia. China, India and Indonesia are altogether almost 45 per cent of the global population, and more than 60 per cent of their electricity comes from coal. How to retire those coal plants will be key.

What progress has there been on ending coal?

It’s going in the wrong direction. Even in the US, coal consumption is growing. Of course, this will change in the months and years to come. Germany, for example, has decided to phase out its coal plants by 2038. But the share of coal there is very small compared to those other countries where coal is a key source of employment. So the challenge is big.

For me, coal, and the coal plants in Asia, are the nerve centre of the entire climate change debate. It is simple arithmetic. If we’re still burning coal, our chances to reach our climate goals will be more and more difficult, if at all attainable.

What did you think of the promises made at US President Joe Biden’s climate summit earlier in the year?

I have mixed feelings. I am very happy that some of the largest economies of the world, such as the US, China, Japan and Canada, came up with ambitious targets, and many governments around the world gave support to the fight against climate change. But I see the rhetoric and data are going in two different directions. I would very much like to see a detailed plan, especially between now and 2030, of how they are going to employ energy policies to reach targets and make those pledges credible.

How realistic is the promise by China’s president, Xi Jinping, to see coal use there peak by 2025?

It is one of the most important statements from the Biden summit, and I find it very encouraging. When I look at the challenges China has faced and has overcome on energy, I hope it can give the world a good outcome. Seven out of 10 solar panels are financed or manufactured by Chinese companies. China is number one in wind and hydropower. I hope, once again, China can achieve the target President Xi has highlighted.

What role do you see oil companies playing as the energy sector decarbonises?

No oil company will be unaffected by the energy transition, whether they are part of it, against it or neutral. In 2019, when we looked at international oil companies’ investments, the share of clean energy was about 1 per cent. As of today, this share has increased significantly, to about 5 per cent. This is a strong increase, but still far from enough to help the clean energy transition.

The IEA forecasts the world will use about 97 million barrels of oil per day in 2021. What does reducing that number mean for big oil-producing nations?

There are huge implications for countries who depend on oil and gas revenues. The amount of oil the world will need may go down to 24 million barrels of oil per day [by 2050]. The price of oil will go down substantially as well. The only way out for those countries is to diversify their economies as soon as possible.

There has been a lot of hype about hydrogen as an alternative fuel in the past year. Is this hype cycle different to previous ones?

I’ve been following the energy markets for many years. Whatever technologies are on the table, there are always people who like it and don’t like it. For the first time, I see a technology that everybody likes. South, north, producer, consumer – everyone loves hydrogen. What I would like to see is at least two things. One, clear strategies and financing secured for those strategies. And second, regulation. In both cases, there is a discrepancy between the hype on hydrogen and what is happening in real life.

What are your hopes and messages for the COP26 climate summit this November?

Energy is good, but emissions are bad. Energy is making our life better, more comfortable, more productive. If I had to choose two things [at COP26], one is credible energy policies to halve global emissions between now and 2030. The second is financing mechanisms put in place to accelerate the clean energy transitions in the emerging world.

Why the distinction between energy and emissions? Do you worry fossil fuels are tarnishing the industry’s image?

People think energy is a troublemaker. The emissions are the troublemaker. You can have a lot of energy, clean energy, which is good for all of us.

Learn how to live a greener life
Find out what sustainable living looks like with the latest New Scientist course academy.newscientist.com

PROFILE

Fatih Birol is executive director of the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organisation formed to promote energy security after the oil crisis of 1973 to 1974, when an embargo by major oil-producing nations caused fuel shortages. In recent years, the IEA has increasingly focused on how the world’s energy systems can transition to meet international climate goals.

[Marvin]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

Rich enough to feel secure.

 

Correlation is not necessarily causation. I personally think: 

Growing wealth = educated people making different decisions amongst other reasons.... 

 

Rich enough to be secure: read Power and Greed by Philippe Deane. You are not taking in the human factors of how humans choose.

I understand the idea but the reality is some what different. ?

[Marvin]

10 hours ago, ProDave said:

Until we stop burning wood at Drax, I have no faith in anyone who is planning our "carbon neutral" generation.

 

I understand that the vast amount of wood pellets are exported from the USA... 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/aburningissuebiomassisthebiggestsourceofrenewableenergyconsumedintheuk/2019-08-30

 

The assessment that this process is carbon neutral is laughable!

[MikeSharp01]

Warming up nicely - pardon the pun! It seems we have so many different views, very few of which are socially or economically acceptable as things stand so no cohesive leadership on the problem. India has already said it will do nothing about the amount of coal it burns, the clean energy growth will just about keep up with economic growth. The Chinese have broadly said the same thing. However @Carrerahilltake a look at your Bosch kettle and see where it was made - perhaps it is this one: https://www.productfrom.com/product/669843-bosch-twk6004n-electric-kettle but to save looking it up it is Hong Kong! We searched high and low for a UK made kettle last year and did not find one then a European one and failed again, there are a few made in the USA and very many designed in the UK! Perhaps we have to live, for now, with being good at design and awful at manufacturing shipping a few digits in the form of drawings does have an environmental impact but nothing like as much as bringing the putative kettle back from the other side of the world in a big ship burning very nasty oil - nobody is thinking full cost. Either way we miss the point it is all about waste in the end - we needed a new kettle cos the old one failed - irreparable. @Marvin you are correct its all about human factors and the way we choose is all about how we are led, whatever the tinge of the regime. Root cause - poor leadership perhaps.

 

 

[jamieled]

At present a population cut is not the entire answer. A 50% cut in population depends on which 50% you cut. Cut the poorest 50% of the worlds population and you'll achieve near bugger all. Cut the richest 50% (I.e. us) and you're probably onto a winner. In practice, climate change or some other malevolent force will probably do this for us and it's often less well developed areas that suffer.

 

Population is a red herring imho.

[Marvin]

10 hours ago, ProDave said:

Until we stop burning wood at Drax, I have no faith in anyone who is planning our "carbon neutral" generation.

 

I understand that the vast amount of wood pellets are exported from the USA... 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/aburningissuebiomassisthebiggestsourceofrenewableenergyconsumedintheuk/2019-08-30

 

The assessment that this process is carbon neutral is laughable!

 

[Marvin]

The repeats are not me! (As far as I know)

 

Can someone please clear up my mess. Thank you.

[Declan52]

15 minutes ago, Marvin said:

The repeats are not me! (As far as I know)

 

Can someone please clear up my mess. Thank you.

Sorted.

[Omnibuswoman]

It is difficult not to feel overwhelmed and dispirited when reading about the legacy future generations have been gifted. I have made a number of changes to my lifestyle in recent years including giving up flying, changing to electric car, and giving up all animal products, and now we are building a low energy home in which to continue our low energy/low impact lifestyle, but it feels nothing like enough.

 

I read yesterday that when he was PM Gordon Brown had committed to making all new homes highly energy efficient (I don't quite recall the details of the standard) by 2016. Our current incumbent quietly let that drop a year or two prior, committing all of those new homeowners to the cost of retrofitting decent amounts of insulation and suitable heating systems. I have to work hard to not just think 'oh well, might as well do x, y or z as we are all f**ked anyway'...

 

 

[SteamyTea]

3 hours ago, jamieled said:

Population is a red herring imho.

Too right.  We are still stuck on The Club Of Rome report from over 50 years ago.  it was rubbished then, and should, along with Silent Spring be burned.

I will keep Fahrenheit 451 though.

[SteamyTea]

This is about where we are with global emissions.

If you think shipping and flying is a problem, don't look at road transport.

 

 

[Onoff]

3 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

We searched high and low for a UK made kettle last year

 

You could have borrowed mine! Plug's a bit old...

 

[MikeSharp01]

7 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

If you think shipping and flying is a problem, don't look at road transport.

Great chart - if you look at it though it gives you some idea just what is developed world and what is not EG energy use in homes must largely be charged against the developed world and could be controlled there. Also the road transport aspect needs a bit more detail as we need to understand it.

[Ferdinand]

13 hours ago, Marvin said:

 

Correlation is not necessarily causation. I personally think: 

Growing wealth = educated people making different decisions amongst other reasons.... 

 

Rich enough to be secure: read Power and Greed by Philippe Deane. You are not taking in the human factors of how humans choose.

I understand the idea but the reality is some what different. ?

 

I don't think Deane is especially germane - he writes about a "big man" theory of history.  

 

I am talking about how a reasonable security in life / society impacts on population growth, at an everyday level.

 

Literacy, education, trade are all parts of development. The data is out there.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

How to understand world energy use – in 10 graphs

How fast is renewable energy rising and fossil fuel use declining? Who’s using how much energy – and for what? Find out in our quick graphical guide to the world energy scene

 

ENVIRONMENT 4 August 2021

By New Scientist

FEDERICO GAMBARINI/DPA/AFP via Getty Images

Energy special

How we can transform our energy system to achieve net-zero emissions
Fatih Birol interview: Using energy isn’t evil – creating emissions is
How the fossil fuel era ends – and four possibilities for what follows

How is energy use changing?

To limit global warming to a nominally safe level of 1.5°C as laid out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, we must replace fossil fuels with practically inexhaustible, clean, renewable alternatives, primarily derived from sun, wind and water. The aim is to hit net-zero carbon emissions – pumping no more carbon dioxide into the Earth system than it can absorb – by mid-century.

A lot of changes will be needed before we get there. Our demand for energy is still rising year-on-year. Discounting the burning of traditional biomass such as wood, fossil fuels cover almost 85 per cent of “primary” energy demand, namely energy in its raw form, before conversion into heat, electricity or transport fuels. Of the big three fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – only demand for coal is falling. More of the increase in primary energy consumption in 2019 was covered by fossil fuels than by renewable resources.

 

What do we use energy for?

Broadly, our demand for energy can be split into three main sectors, each accounting for roughly a third of energy demand.

First, there is the energy used in the buildings in which we live, work and spend our leisure time. About 77 per cent of this goes on heating (and to a lesser extent cooling). Just 10 per cent of that energy comes from modern renewable sources, which excludes things such as biomass and wood used for heating. The remaining 23 per cent of buildings-related energy use is electricity for lighting and appliances. Modern renewables supply about 26 per cent of that, with this proportion rising rapidly year-on-year.

The second broad sector is industry and agriculture. About 75 per cent of energy used here is for heat, for example in making steam to power industrial processes and for drying and refrigeration; the rest is for electricity for purposes such as operating machinery and lighting. Some of the most energy-intensive industries, for instance making steel and cement, have the lowest shares of renewable energy. Paper-making, meanwhile, covers 46 per cent of its energy needs with renewable energy.

 

In the third sector, transport, fossil fuels – chiefly oil – account for almost 97 per cent of all demand, principally to fuel cars and aeroplanes. Encouraging walking and cycling rather than car use can help, as can replacing petrol and diesel cars with electric vehicles, and using biofuels and hydrogen as alternative fuels – if these can be made greener.

Who is using what energy?

Three major developed economies dominate the league table of energy use per capita: Canada, the US and Australia. High car and aeroplane use, spread-out suburbs with large average home size, and high energy use for cooling and heating are all contributing factors.

Countries also acquire their energy in different ways. Australia, for instance, burns far more coal per capita than Canada or the US, with only South Africa and China coming close to this out of the larger economies.

Sweden, like Canada an affluent country with long, cold winters, covers most of its energy needs with low-carbon nuclear and hydropower. Along with France, Sweden is unusual in still having a significant amount of nuclear power in its energy mix.

Electricity generation

Renewable electricity generating capacity, especially of solar panels, has boomed in recent years – but so has demand for electricity, meaning fossil generation is still rising too. Nuclear power has also declined, so although renewables now account for 75 per cent of newly installed global electricity generating capacity, the proportion of low-carbon electricity has only increased from 35.2 per cent in 2000 to 36.7 per cent in 2020.

Getting to net-zero requires this number to be much closer to 100 per cent. This will need huge investment, not just in wind turbines and solar panels, but in transmission infrastructure, smart grids and batteries to smooth over the natural variability in electricity supply, over days and seasons, from most renewable sources.

[Ferdinand]

@SteamyTea

 

Where are forest fires on that chart, as are getting attention on the news in Siberia at present?

 

@MikeSharp01

 

Do you have a definition of "Developed World"?

 

In particular where do you put "LOWER-MIDDLE INCOME ECONOMIES ($1,046 TO $4,095)      " (includes India / Indonesia / Bangladesh / Iran) and "UPPER-MIDDLE-INCOME ECONOMIES ($4,096 TO $12,695) " (Includes China)?

 

Transferring the lessons of some High Income economies to these in a way that all find acceptable will be key between now and 2050 imo. The Emissions Intensity of GDP is an interesting (and hopeful - maybe) chart. It's about moving towards high income without going through the high-emissions stage.

 

At the risk of horribly abusing Maslow, many many countries are at the level in his hierarchy where these questions are not important enough. 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

@SteamyTea

 

Where are forest fires on that chart, as are getting attention on the news in Siberia at present?

I don't think they are shown.  But crop burning and deforestation accounts for 7.7%.

You can make an estimate if you know the area and type of growth there.

[MikeSharp01]

59 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

 

Great food for though here how might we all get out total energy consumption (including supply chains) per head down to that of India while also removing coal, gas and oil from the mix I wonder.

[Ferdinand]

6 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Great food for though here how might we all get out total energy consumption (including supply chains) per head down to that of India while also removing coal, gas and oil from the mix I wonder.

 

Interestingly different to the emissions per pop numbers, where France is just below the UK and Germany about 80% higher.

[Wil]

Build. More. Nukes.

 

Although there is the minor possibility that when the nutters get hold of them, that population decrease argument will take care of itself.