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 yesterday at 08:44 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 yesterday at 11:56 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" 

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

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" 

 

Pessemistic, but realistic, and what is actually happening and will continue to happen.

[SteamyTea]

Here is the other side of the story about our electrical energy.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0031h8j

 

It is by Jonathan Ford, so be warned, it is not exactly unbiased.

Edited yesterday at 19:45 by SteamyTea

[Beelbeebub]

19 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Pessemistic, but realistic, and what is actually happening and will continue to happen.

Except the reality of where we are now is way ahead of where the "realists"  (and even the optimists) thought we would be.

 

The UK has shifted 10% (from 10 to 20%) of it's primary energy away from fossil fuels to renewables is under 15 years.

 

Pakistan did similar in a little under 10 years.

 

We still have a way to go but the two big prizes are the electrification of heat and transport.  Which account for over half of our current consumption.

 

Both of those could be achieved (switched to electrification for the majority of uses - there will always be edge cases like a remote highland cottage or heavy haulage to remote locations that will be hard/impossible to switch) by 2050. Few  cars or boilers bought before 2030 will be in service then. Maybe 10%. So if we stopped selling/installing by 2030 - which there are no technical barrier to doing so (in the majority of cases) the problem will solve itself.

 

And to power all that renewably our current renewable capacity has to triple. 

 

Which was the plan - no new boiler installs from 2030 and no ice car sales from 2030 either. Plus a tripling of our renewable capacity.

 

It was planned for. Manufacturers were making investments to meet those targets etc.

 

And then certain people started pushing the "it's impossible, it's too expensive, what about the poor people?!, it's woke nonsense..." Etc lines and suddenly those plans are watered down or shelved

 

 

Meanwhile diesel is climbing above 1.90 for the second time this year despite the Iran war being declared over for the upteenth time this year and the UK is still dependent on imported petrol/diesel for 40% of it's transport.

Edited 8 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[SteamyTea]

Rather than forcing people to buy BEVs, why not fine people £1000 if their cars are loud, say over 75dB.

Was tailgated by a nob in a black Merc yesterday. Even though we were in a 20MPH zone, with lots of traffic, he still felt the need to declutch and redline his engine.

I am currently sitting, 8n the sun, by the same stretch of road. Lots of traffic as school run is just finishing.

Here is the screenshot of my decibelimeter.

 

 

[Onoff]

30 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Lots of traffic as school run is just finishing.

 

School mums... 😉

[-rick-]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Pakistan did similar in a little under 10 years.

 

Be interesting to see where places like Pakistan are 1 year after the Iran stuff started. Poor countries dependent on imported energy have been going hell for leather on renewables since then as it's by far the cheapest (and decentralised) way to energy security for them.

Edited 5 hours ago by -rick-

[Beelbeebub]

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/the-solarisation-of-pakistans-energy-economy/

 

Estimated USD12bn saving in imported fossil fuels due to huge solar uptake

 

Saw an estimate that they had imported 13GW of solar panels in 2025 alone - against a backdrop of 45GW total grid capacity.

 

Ethiopia has gone big on electric vehicles because the cost of oil (in USD) was dragging the economy.

 

One interesting nugget mentioned was that with solar becoming the cheapest power - places where solar panels work well eg near the equator are poised to have a huge advantage of their northern competitors in the coming years 

 

[Roger440]

7 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Except the reality of where we are now is way ahead of where the "realists"  (and even the optimists) thought we would be.

 

The UK has shifted 10% (from 10 to 20%) of it's primary energy away from fossil fuels to renewables is under 15 years.

 

Pakistan did similar in a little under 10 years.

 

We still have a way to go but the two big prizes are the electrification of heat and transport.  Which account for over half of our current consumption.

 

Both of those could be achieved (switched to electrification for the majority of uses - there will always be edge cases like a remote highland cottage or heavy haulage to remote locations that will be hard/impossible to switch) by 2050. Few  cars or boilers bought before 2030 will be in service then. Maybe 10%. So if we stopped selling/installing by 2030 - which there are no technical barrier to doing so (in the majority of cases) the problem will solve itself.

 

And to power all that renewably our current renewable capacity has to triple. 

 

Which was the plan - no new boiler installs from 2030 and no ice car sales from 2030 either. Plus a tripling of our renewable capacity.

 

It was planned for. Manufacturers were making investments to meet those targets etc.

 

And then certain people started pushing the "it's impossible, it's too expensive, what about the poor people?!, it's woke nonsense..." Etc lines and suddenly those plans are watered down or shelved

 

 

Meanwhile diesel is climbing above 1.90 for the second time this year despite the Iran war being declared over for the upteenth time this year and the UK is still dependent on imported petrol/diesel for 40% of it's transport.

 

Globally no, we are not "ahead".

 

The UK being miles ahead wont stop anything.

 

My point was globally. Not UK.

[Beelbeebub]

14 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

Globally no, we are not "ahead".

 

The UK being miles ahead wont stop anything.

 

My point was globally. Not UK.

Again, not so pessimistic.

 

CO2 emissions are still growing but by ever smaller amounts.

 

2025 was only 0.8% higher than 2024. 

 

2024 was 1% huger than 2023.

 

Between 2019 and 2024 emissions gre from 33.5Gt to 34.9Gt - about 3.8%

 

But they would have grown by over 11.5% if solar, wind, a tiny bit of nuclear plus electric car adoption hadn't curbed 2/3 of the growth.

 

Almost all of the growth in electricity generation worldwide in 2025 came from renewables.

 

2026 is likely to be a big year for emissions reduction and renewable adoption.

 

We will probably see emissions start to fall worldwide by the end of this decade. 

 

Which was unthinkable a decade or two ago.

 

But all of this is focussing on emissions, carbon etc 

 

The whole point of this thread is that *even if you don't believe in any of that* we still should pursue policies like electrification of heating and transport plus a massive increase in domestically produced energy simply for national security and economic reasons.

 

And the *only* way to increase domestic energy production is via renewables and nuclear.
 

 

[Roger440]

19 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

Again, not so pessimistic.

 

CO2 emissions are still growing but by ever smaller amounts.

 

2025 was only 0.8% higher than 2024. 

 

2024 was 1% huger than 2023.

 

Between 2019 and 2024 emissions gre from 33.5Gt to 34.9Gt - about 3.8%

 

But they would have grown by over 11.5% if solar, wind, a tiny bit of nuclear plus electric car adoption hadn't curbed 2/3 of the growth.

 

Almost all of the growth in electricity generation worldwide in 2025 came from renewables.

 

2026 is likely to be a big year for emissions reduction and renewable adoption.

 

We will probably see emissions start to fall worldwide by the end of this decade. 

 

Which was unthinkable a decade or two ago.

 

But all of this is focussing on emissions, carbon etc 

 

The whole point of this thread is that *even if you don't believe in any of that* we still should pursue policies like electrification of heating and transport plus a massive increase in domestically produced energy simply for national security and economic reasons.

 

And the *only* way to increase domestic energy production is via renewables and nuclear.
 

 

 

Maybe go back and read my post on the previous page. Most of this ^^^^ is just another one of your rants and is not relevant to what i said.