Scientists trace heat waves back to individual fossil fuel companies, with potentially sweeping courtroom implications

[cjsparkey]

From that graph it looks like since 2010ish the year on year increase in the levels has slowed.if not levelled out compared to the previous decades?

looks like something is happening?

[SteamyTea]

26 minutes ago, ProDave said:

WHY are emissions STILL going up?

 

Are you for real?

 

But to answer it, energy, from what ever source, has/is contributing to higher global standards of living.

We also produce more, with less energy, but as we have, apart from the bottom billion people, managed to secure our food, shelter, healthcare and educational needs, we have all got better off, we are demanding more non essential goods i.e. cars, consumer goods, international recreation travel, second homes etc.

But I know deep down you want to blame it on other countries having too many people, and all the problems are really to do with overpopulation.

The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, still lingers in the British thinking as if it was a religion, even though it was debunked as soon as it came out. If it was true, a gallon if gasoline would cost 50 quid and a potato would be a tenner.

 

[Roger440]

Im sitting this one out.

 

Theres only one allowable viewpoint on here........................

 

 

[marshian]

Politics, climate change and Covid are three subjects where the populations view has been polarised by the media and now the vast majority sit in two camps with hardened views and no discussion is going to change either sides point of view……..

 

Quite sad really 

[marshian]

4 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Im sitting this one out.

 

Theres only one allowable viewpoint on here........................

 

 

It’s how the USA got Trump (twice) - food for thought?

 

 

If you have seen it before sorry 

 

now replace Trump with Climate Change or Covid - the video works for both

Edited Friday at 20:04 by marshian
Add link

[Roger440]

1 minute ago, marshian said:

It’s how the USA got Trump (twice) - food for thought?

 

Not sure i see the relevance. Or maybe you are just re-inforcing my point............................

[marshian]

1 minute ago, Roger440 said:

 

Not sure i see the relevance. Or maybe you are just re-inforcing my point............................

When there is no room for discussion and opposing viewpoints are shut down people are silent for fear of being labelled - they voice their opinion in the only way they can at the ballot box and stick a very large two fingers up to the establishment.

 

I can see that happening in the UK and a complete bunch of fruit cakes standing for reform being given the keys to the bus!!!!

[Roger440]

3 minutes ago, marshian said:

When there is no room for discussion and opposing viewpoints are shut down people are silent for fear of being labelled - they voice their opinion in the only way they can at the ballot box and stick a very large two fingers up to the establishment.

 

I can see that happening in the UK and a complete bunch of fruit cakes standing for reform being given the keys to the bus!!!!

 

Agreed. Your suggested sceanario is almost certainly what will happen. For the reasons you state.

 

And its no different on here. Only one viewpoint allowed.

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

And its no different on here. Only one viewpoint allowed

So peer review evidence is one viewpoint, the other is opinion. How about backing up the opinion with peer reviewed evidence. That will level the playing field surely.

 

[dpmiller]

Isn't it nice to just try and tread lightly on the earth?

[Roger440]

25 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So peer review evidence is one viewpoint, the other is opinion. How about backing up the opinion with peer reviewed evidence. That will level the playing field surely.

 

 

Once again, you are making asumptions about what im saying. Ie, appear to be suggesting im denying that the climate is changing.

 

Ive never said that.

 

My view is about how we deal with that. There are lots of options for that. Ive expressed them before, and therefore will not do so again as theres only one way of tackling it permitted here. All others are shouted down. 

 

Ive failed to follow my own post. But will do from here on.

 

[marshian]

48 minutes ago, dpmiller said:

Isn't it nice to just try and tread lightly on the earth?

Absolutely

[marshian]

I have no doubt that man on this earth has had an influence on the climate - can we reverse it - maybe - should we try absolutely?

 

However is the current path the right one? Can we discuss this? No.........

 

What I really have an issue with is trust in authority (AKA Government) and MSM is broken and their reaction to Covid caused it - it was pretty shakey before but Covid broke it - utterly broke it in my opinion - I'm sure other opinions are equally valid

 

What broke it - the total suppression of discussion - there was no alternative opinion or direction of travel allowed 

 

What was it Elizabeth Arden Said "We are your one point of truth - nothing except what we say is true" Jesus Christ!!!

 

How many statements have been proven to be be false 

 

How many conspiracy theory's ridiculed are now grounded in fact

 

Good luck all because IMO this is all going to end very very badly and no one in power is going to be happy about that 

[Crofter]

May I make a suggestion for some light reading that is pertinent to this discussion? 

 

'Not the end of the world" by Hannah Ritchie... she's what you would call a techno-optimist.

 

To summarise... yes, things are bad, and yes, they are going to get worse. But we are perhaps the first generation capable of actually creating a sustainable world. There are some amazing encouraging signs already.

 

We probably won't hit the 1.5⁰ limit. But the closer we can keep to that, the better. It's better to have 2⁰ of warming than 4⁰.

 

Global population is slowing markedly, and many countries including China have already passed peak per capita emissions. As populations level off total global emissions will fall, even without any major changes in energy use. And we are getting much more efficient with energy all the time. (Just think of how little energy a new build home takes compared to one from a few decades ago! Or a modern EV compared a 1990s Escort that did 35mpg!)

 

Finally, there is plenty of low hanging fruit still available in the fight to cut emissions. It might be unpopular but reducing meat and dairy, and food waste, would be an enormous benefit. The world currently produces more than twice the total food calories needed for its population. But we feed much of that to livestock, and too much goes to waste. 

 

What's generally lacking from current discussions is data. Too many people argue from anecdotes. The numbers are all out there, we don't have to guess.

[-rick-]

8 hours ago, Crofter said:

Finally, there is plenty of low hanging fruit still available in the fight to cut emissions. It might be unpopular but reducing meat and dairy, and food waste, would be an enormous benefit. The world currently produces more than twice the total food calories needed for its population. But we feed much of that to livestock, and too much goes to waste. 

 

I tend to think the focus on this is misguided. It's obviously true but it's one of the things that makes a large number of people reject the idea of making changes to deal with climate change.

 

Maybe it wasn't true in the past but we have the technology now so that we can relatively easily achieve a future with very low emissions without these sorts of changes. Solar, Wind, Batteries are all cheap enough now that it makes sense to use them even ignoring the environmental benefits. SIAC in China has just launched its new MG car there for about $10k with a new type of battery that is both much cheaper to make and much longer range. They claim something like 400miles and very rapid charge.

 

We are very near the point where it is illogical for pretty much anyone to want a fossil fueled vehicle. Theres a guy on Youtube 'Electric Trucker' who vlogs about his job driving electric 40t trucks around Europe. IDK what they cost to buy, but he is easily using up all his allowed driving time in these electric trucks and the charging infrastructure is good enough that it doesn't seem to be causing him much inconvenience at all in his deliverys.

[Mike]

10 hours ago, Crofter said:

It might be unpopular but reducing meat and dairy, and food waste, would be an enormous benefit.

Not sure if it's that unpopular at a population level as there was a >15% reduction between 2008 & 2019 in the UK. However the reasons are unlikely to be entirely environmental; the research hints that cost & health concerns may be factors. I'd guess that shrinkflation may be another, since portion size is a key factor behind the reduction.

 

[ProDave]

On 12/09/2025 at 19:59, SteamyTea said:

Are you for real?

 

But to answer it, energy, from what ever source, has/is contributing to higher global standards of living.

We also produce more, with less energy, but as we have, apart from the bottom billion people, managed to secure our food, shelter, healthcare and educational needs, we have all got better off, we are demanding more non essential goods i.e. cars, consumer goods, international recreation travel, second homes etc.

But I know deep down you want to blame it on other countries having too many people, and all the problems are really to do with overpopulation.

The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, still lingers in the British thinking as if it was a religion, even though it was debunked as soon as it came out. If it was true, a gallon if gasoline would cost 50 quid and a potato would be a tenner.

 

You dismiss my question without answering it. So I will try again and hope someone can,

 

Since at least 2000 we have been closing down down coal fired power stations and building wind farms and installing solar PV.  Now a greater percentage of our energy is produced by renewable generation and less by fossil fuels than ever before.  Logic would dictate therefore that over that period our emmissions have reduced.

 

BUT the graphs in the links above still show emmissions are rising.  THAT is what does not compute and I am questioning, at best all I can see is a slight reduction in the rate of rise, no sign of a fall.

 

So lets spell out my concerns with this.

 

IF all this changing to "renewables" has NOT resulted in a reduction in emmissions, then something is wrong.  Is it that the green energy is not as green as claimed?  Is the data flawed? or has our total generation risen over that period? wiping out the benefit of greener generation?

 

Is it that unmentionable elephant in the room, population rise?  If course population rise will increase CO2 emmissiins but we dare not discuss that.

 

OR since the graph does not tell us WHERE the data is from, is that in fact GLOBAL emmissions are still rising while the UK is a head of the curve and our own emmissions are already reducing?

 

We just don't know.

 

All I see is we have been trying to clean up for some time, yet the "presented" evidence does not show it to be working.  No wonder people are getting fed up with this.

 

I want a greener cleaner world, but I hate being "manipulated" as seems to be the case to achieve this.

[SteamyTea]

You can go and see all the best data there currently is here:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-mix-uk?tab=chart&country=~GBR

 

But a quick précis below.

 

You can discus population growth, but it is not the problem, bad management and denial of technology to others is where blame lies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

36 minutes ago, ProDave said:

IF all this changing to "renewables" has NOT resulted in a reduction in emissions

But it has - there's been a massive reduction. The 2025 report (PDF) from the Climate Change Committee includes the latest information on that (pages 10, 29 & 30)

 

 

Progress to date [on emissions reduction] has been primarily driven by decarbonisation of the electricity system, with renewables replacing both coal and, increasingly, gas.

 

The electricity supply sector has been the key driver of overall emissions reductions and has seen sustained progress over recent years. Emissions in the sector are now 82% lower than in 2008

 

 

 

[Crofter]

The UK is, for once, a leader on decarbonisation. Something to be proud of. Strange then that all the flag yielding 'patriots' want to reverse that progress.

[ProDave]

37 minutes ago, Crofter said:

The UK is, for once, a leader on decarbonisation. Something to be proud of. Strange then that all the flag yielding 'patriots' want to reverse that progress.

GOOD.

 

So why are we not seeing this headline promoted as encouragement that we are doing well, but still a way to go?

 

The article that started this thread showed a graph with emissions still rising.  If you are trying to encourage people to do more, don't post a graph like that when it does not relate to the UK.  Post the one showing emissions are falling, we are making progress and what we are doing is working.

 

AND use it to also highlight that while the UK is travelling in the right direction the rest of the world is not, yet.  We can't directly control that other than hold ourselves up as a model to follow.

 

Can others not see what I am saying here, all the main media portrays is how dire the situation is how bad we are and we must change much quicker, where the reality is WE (the UK) are doing quite well have made big improvements but we must continue to do so.

 

Perhaps I am just a grumpy old man that would like some thanks for what we have done and results to show it is working and might therefore be encouraged to continue.  I was starting to get very fed up that we kept on doing the right thing, but nothing appeared to be getting better and nobody was thanking us or even showing the progress so far.

 

 

[Crofter]

32 minutes ago, ProDave said:

GOOD.

 

So why are we not seeing this headline promoted as encouragement that we are doing well, but still a way to go?

 

The article that started this thread showed a graph with emissions still rising.  If you are trying to encourage people to do more, don't post a graph like that when it does not relate to the UK.  Post the one showing emissions are falling, we are making progress and what we are doing is working.

 

AND use it to also highlight that while the UK is travelling in the right direction the rest of the world is not, yet.  We can't directly control that other than hold ourselves up as a model to follow.

 

Can others not see what I am saying here, all the main media portrays is how dire the situation is how bad we are and we must change much quicker, where the reality is WE (the UK) are doing quite well have made big improvements but we must continue to do so.

 

Perhaps I am just a grumpy old man that would like some thanks for what we have done and results to show it is working and might therefore be encouraged to continue.  I was starting to get very fed up that we kept on doing the right thing, but nothing appeared to be getting better and nobody was thanking us or even showing the progress so far.

 

 

It depends on where you get your news.

If your main sources are the Telegraph, Daily Mail, and GB News, then you'll come away thinking that heat pumps are woke, EVs will turn your children gay, and renewables are an evil WEF conspiracy designed to bankrupt us for some nefarious purpose.

 

Why doesn't the good news get more recognition? This isn't limited to renewables. Nobody is shouting from the rooftops about the modern day miracles that have happened in healthcare over the past few decades. Child mortality, maternal mortality, both slashed globally. Life expectancy and quality of life massively improved. Very few people across the globe area now in utter poverty.are

 

In the UK, crime is down. Immigration is down (it spiked under Johnson, and it's now about half what it was at the peak). But as a nation we swallow Farage's tripe that tells us the opposite.

 

Good news doesn't sell newspapers, or generate clicks. That's why our best selling outlets like the Mail are such purveyors of misery. Same as soap operas, which are hardly feel good comedies. To quote Mrs Doyle... 'maybe I like the misery"...

[SteamyTea]

15 minutes ago, Crofter said:

Good news doesn't sell newspapers

The press tends to print stories that are rare, not common.

Why we read about EV fires, but not ICE ones.

Nor only has child mortality dropped, so has birthrate in most countries.

[ProDave]

The Main media tends to hightlight what it thinks (or is told?) is the correct message.

[-rick-]

15 minutes ago, ProDave said:

The Main media tends to hightlight what it thinks (or is told?) is the correct message.

 

It really doesn't. Maybe it used to but but now with every news outlet scratching around for money and everyone just wanting to get news on a free website/short video clips the most common motivation behind a headline or an article is 'What will get the most clicks?'.

 

The number of staff dedicated to investigations or detailled reporting has been slashed to almost nothing. Instead of a journalist being given time to research a story, talk to people to understand the subject, etc, they are expected to churn out 2 or 3 click worthy articles a day. An article on a website, even the big ones, has a good chance of either being substantially written by AI or by a PR agency pushing a certain line because the outlet is just not earning enough money to pay for more staff. This doesn't just affect the for-profit media either. Both the BBC and Guardian are supposedly non-profit with funding sources at least partially outside of ad-sales/readership but they have been following the same pattern (maybe a little slower).

 

Thats before touching on the partiality of a lot of our news sources these days, which overall is slanted to the anti-environmental right and thus those outlets are even less likely to report on good environmental news.