Why we need "Net zero"

[saveasteading]

41 minutes ago, -rick- said:

vastly more costly option. By multiple orders of magnitude.

Am I misunderstanding?

 

Adaptation involves turning off unused lights, putting a jumper on in the cold weather. Not doing the dishes under a hot running tap.

Reuse, repair and recycle.

Don't buy what you don't need.

They're easy and have less than zero cost.  Or in trump maths 200% reduction.

 

Then comes not having so many cars, reducing plane travel.

 

It's back to the 1950s basically and adjusting expectation, but with the benefit of greener energy.

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

Adapation was and is the only realistic route forwards.

And is much cheaper than new every time. It's just not what people, and big business 0 want.

[-rick-]

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Am I misunderstanding?

 

Yes

 

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Adaptation involves turning off unused lights, putting a jumper on in the cold weather. Not doing the dishes under a hot running tap.

Reuse, repair and recycle.

Don't buy what you don't need.

They're easy and have less than zero cost.  Or in trump maths 200% reduction.

 

Not going to touch the sides.

 

Adaption in climate terms, means changing the crops we grow. Living with a lower population world (there will be less arable land in temperate zones so it will be difficult to grow as much food as we do now)

 

Obviously air conditioning/more insulation/more heating for people depending on where you live.

 

Adaption also means living with higher sea levels of at least a metre or two maybe more. That means at minimum building a new much bigger tidal barrier in London (and similar examples all over the world), possibly abandoning various existing urban areas due to no cost-effective protections available.

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Adaptation involves turning off unused lights, putting a jumper on in the cold weather

And building huge flood defences, reorganising food supplies, dealing with greater fuel insecurities, health care will have new priorities.

 

There is a lot to consider.

 

Turning off lights, adding solar panels and driving less is mitigation.

Edited 3 hours ago by SteamyTea

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Adapation was and is the only realistic route forwards.

Those with a bit of foresight would have been "adapting" for a long time.

 

I would not as a matter of course buy a house less than 10 metres above sea level or built on a river flood plain.  If everybody had planned ahead like that, no such new houses would have been built like that over say the last 20 years.  But if that is the only place planners will grant permission then the sheeple have been ushered into a whole load of expensive trouble ahead.

 

I have been sharing this wisdom with my daughter who is buying her first house.  I have advised her not to consider any in the area she is currently renting as there is a flood history there (next to a river)  She has settled on one in a different part of town much higher up.

[Roger440]

3 hours ago, -rick- said:

 

Yes

 

 

Not going to touch the sides.

 

Adaption in climate terms, means changing the crops we grow. Living with a lower population world (there will be less arable land in temperate zones so it will be difficult to grow as much food as we do now)

 

Obviously air conditioning/more insulation/more heating for people depending on where you live.

 

Adaption also means living with higher sea levels of at least a metre or two maybe more. That means at minimum building a new much bigger tidal barrier in London (and similar examples all over the world), possibly abandoning various existing urban areas due to no cost-effective protections available.

 

At the more extreme projections, it wont be pretty. 

 

But they are that, projections.

 

People will find a way to survive. But maybe not all of them.

[Beelbeebub]

We are now past the point where we can avoid adaption, but we can still control the amount of adaption.

 

If we try to reduce the amount of warming the adaptions we have make might not be too expensive and crucially can be made at slower pace. This is especially important for infrastructure where the natural replacement cycles are fairly long.

 

But if we allow warming and the associated climate change to go unchecked (by ditching "net stupid zero" as some very stupid politicians advocate) the costs of adaption really start to mount up.

 

Consider the asphalt on out roads is engineered for a specific temperature range that matches our historic climate.  If our summers get hotter out roads will all start to need resurfacing.  Our railways will need to be relaid to allow for the higher temperatures causing higher levels of track expansion.

 

If rainfall levels increase our gutters on our houses will need to be replaced *and* our storm drains upsized.

 

And then there are the cultural impacts.  The same politicians who are against net zero tend to be extremely attached to a certain (and nebulous) idea of our natural culture.  That will change as the climate changes - and some wag will say cash "warm summers and BBQs great" but it will be things like working hours, design of houses, clothing, the food we eat, the beer we drink etc.

 

Adaption is expensive.

 

 

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

Those with a bit of foresight would have been "adapting" for a long time.

 

I would not as a matter of course buy a house less than 10 metres above sea level or built on a river flood plain.  If everybody had planned ahead like that, no such new houses would have been built like that over say the last 20 years.  But if that is the only place planners will grant permission then the sheeple have been ushered into a whole load of expensive trouble ahead.

 

I have been sharing this wisdom with my daughter who is buying her first house.  I have advised her not to consider any in the area she is currently renting as there is a flood history there (next to a river)  She has settled on one in a different part of town much higher up.

Very sensible 

 

Don't forget to advise her to avoid a south facing garden or lots of south facing glass.

 

And check the soil type. Clay areas will see alot more subsidence.

Edited 45 minutes ago by Beelbeebub

[Beelbeebub]

4 hours ago, Roger440 said:

There was, and still isnt, any possibility of collective action by everyone to do what needs to be done, before we consider there are no guarantees that even if we did it would make any useful difference. 

This is one view and a pessimistic one 

 

(Also one that fits the oil and gas industry - it's hopeless so just keep buying our product)

 

But action can and has been taken collectively. 

 

Anyone remember the ozone layer?

 

If every country does their bit then we can have an effect.

 

What definitely won't work is going "oh china blah blah let's not do anything"