Global warming, is it already too late to make meaningful change?

Rocker

The recent discussion on the expansion of Heathrow has convinced me that we have lost the battle to save the planet from the effects of global warming. Massive deforestation, factory farming methods, ever increasing use of fossil fuels for travel, industrial pollution etc. The planet has no chance. Maybe not in our time but I believe that it is already too late to save it. Discuss.

Fretwired

There's no such thing as global warming.

You need to get out more. Have a Mars bar and a cold beer ... :-)


(Can you think what he'll be like when he finds out about Brexit)

Winny_Pooh

There are already more environmentally friendly ways of doing things. But they cannot complete with the rate of human population and particularly consumption. Africa, India and China used to consume radically less per capita than the US (highest per capita) but that is changing worldwide. Note that the majority of industry relies on converting or using natural resources at a rate faster than replacement. 

Technology counteracts this by creating efficiency but this is simply a retardant force and not a solution. Ultimately we are doomed as humans show little to no capacity to change their attitude to childbirth, consumption and the value of a renewable environment.

ICBM

No - but the key is getting China, India and other major developing economies to modernise as fast as possible, and get through the fossil-fuel age in perhaps 20 years instead of the 200 it took the West. There are promising signs that this is possible, even given that currently they're still building more fossil capacity.

There will be climate change and major ecological damage in the mean time - it's unstoppable now - but it may not be as serious or as irreversible as it seemed only ten years ago.

Winny_Pooh said:

Ultimately we are doomed as humans show little to no capacity to change their attitude to childbirth, consumption and the value of a renewable environment.

Actually you're wrong about that. Population growth is slowing markedly and the total population is likely to peak at around 11 billion. Still a lot, but probably survivable with better technology for all.

Higher standards of living encourage lower childbirth rates as well as more efficient use of resources in the long term. The important factor is high technology.

Watch this if you have an hour - it's not as depressing as you'd think.

Nitefly

I reckon the planet will be just fine, if a little battle-scarred - whether or not there are any humans left to witness it is another question.

holnrew

If we spent as much money on science to stop it as we did blowing each other up, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

Emp_Fab

We won't get anywhere.  It's utterly pointless trying.  Human greed will guarantee that we will always prioritise personal gain and eventually, the world will turn into Bladerunner or suchlike.  The sooner the humans ruin the Earth so they become extinct, the quicker the Earth can heal without us shitting all over it.

mgaw

the earth as a palnet will survive what is at risk here are the climatic conditions we need to thrive

Rocker

Good point @mgaw but that is what the Global warming warnings are all about.  Can we survive if the planet gets much warmer.....

mgaw

yes of course we can, not as we do now though.  Many 100's of millions of refugees, conflict, famine, revolutions/uprisings. Economic turmoil, Fascism all to a greater degree than most realise, unless of course "globalisation" saves us the worst of it.

For the first time in Human history we are reaching a position of a global community (not without some glaring difficulties), by this i mean we have never be so interdependant and with a will that could turn out to be the one thing that gives some hope that terminal decline may be avoided, As the shit continues to hit the fan, political will, will increase.......

Sporky

It's preventable until it isn't, and molliable after that.

The question is how shitty you're willing for it to get vs how willing you are to make it better.

UnclePsychosis

This comic springs to mind. 

AliGorie

the greed gene has it in for us and it's winning.

Moss

http://masetv.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-09-22-at-10.28.26-PM.png

Fretwired

During the Roman Warm Period (Roman climatic optimum) the Earth was as warm as it is today - there were vineyards all over England. The Earth eventually cooled due to a reduction in solar activity.

I don't doubt the fact that the Earth is warming but I'm not sure we fully understand how the planet works. Forecasts have been consistently wrong - the Earth gets warmer and then cools down and nobody really knows why.

Governments should change tack - rather than bleating on with the doomsday message about global warming start tackling things that affect people everyday. For example, over 9,000 people die in London from pollution every year and pollution kills over 40,000 people in the UK every year but it gets very little press. In London diesel emissions cause a lot of deaths. Fix the causes of pollution and you'll help people and get their buy in and the planet. 

Moe_Zambeek

Interestingly there is a theory that automation will curtail the progress through an industrial revolution style boom in low cost countries like India and others. Robots eliminate the benefit of cheap labour and restricts the need for vast polluting industrial complexes. Good(ish) for the environment, not necessarily for the people.

That presents another existential dilemma - huge populations without the means of raising their living standards or incomes (local-relative) while other select elites maintain theirs. This could be a cause of considerable social and indeed global tension. Given declining trade volumes globally the theory that industrialisation and the exploitation of cost benefits in non-modernised economies will lift everyone out of poverty may be about to be disproved by technology. Then what? 

Evilmags

Fretwired said:

During the Roman Warm Period (Roman climatic optimum) the Earth was as warm as it is today - there were vineyards all over England. The Earth eventually cooled due to a reduction in solar activity.

I don't doubt the fact that the Earth is warming but I'm not sure we fully understand how the planet works. Forecasts have been consistently wrong - the Earth gets warmer and then cools down and nobody really knows why.

Governments should change tack - rather than bleating on with the doomsday message about global warming start tackling things that affect people everyday. For example, over 9,000 people die in London from pollution every year and pollution kills over 40,000 people in the UK every year but it gets very little press. In London diesel emissions cause a lot of deaths. Fix the causes of pollution and you'll help people and get their buy in and the planet. 

Quite. The promotion of diesel fuel at a European level was nuts. The particles emitted are much heavier than petrol and stay around humans. Nearly every big city has seen return of Smog due to this,  Paris amd Madrid being particularly effected. Also a lot of development money which the market would have spent on petrol engines started being spent on very high compression turbo based engines. 

US cities, despite V8s being popular have way less pollution. 

Cirrus

Fretwired said:

During the Roman Warm Period (Roman climatic optimum) the Earth was as warm as it is today - there were vineyards all over England. The Earth eventually cooled due to a reduction in solar activity.

I don't doubt the fact that the Earth is warming but I'm not sure we fully understand how the planet works. Forecasts have been consistently wrong - the Earth gets warmer and then cools down and nobody really knows why.

I agree, and I used to say exactly the same thing. I think it comes down to the rate of change and what we can attribute the change to. Yes, climate changes anyway. Sea levels rise and fall. Atmospheric composition changes. But I think there's a difference between noting that it was as warm 2000 years ago when we can say it was because of solar activity, the earth's orbit, a lack of major volcanic eruptions or whatever - it's attributable - vs a rapid change now that goes beyond what we've seen historically that can't be explained by these natural occurances.

As always, there's a relevant XKCD;

ICBM

Evilmags said:

Quite. The promotion of diesel fuel at a European level was nuts. The particles emitted are much heavier than petrol and stay around humans. Nearly every big city has seen return of Smog due to this,  Paris amd Madrid being particularly effected. Also a lot of development money which the market would have spent on petrol engines started being spent on very high compression turbo based engines. 

US cities, despite V8s being popular have way less pollution. 

Exactly. It was caused entirely by politicians misinterpreting environmental advice, and/or someone just getting the science plain wrong.

Diesel *is* more efficient than petrol in absolute carbon emission terms when an engine is running constantly at its optimum rev range - which is why it's the best fuel for train, trucks, tractors, ships etc. But for almost anything other than that it's both less efficient and produces more dangerous pollutants than an equivalent-tech petrol engine.

The idea of putting diesel engines in small cars for anything other than motorway driving is completely counterproductive - the problem is that now having sold so many, it's going to be politically difficult to reverse the policy, and even harder to discourage the use of the ones already sold by raising the price of diesel to accurately reflect the impact it has - but it should be much more expensive, because the "better mpg" from diesel is because each litre contains far more carbon than a litre of petrol.

stickyfiddle

Wis awarded above. London is probably the cleanest it's been for 150 years, but if you live there and leave the house regularly you still end up with black snot and layers of grey shite all over your skin. It's horrible.

Schwarzengger, of all people, has it spot on. 

“It drives me crazy when people talk about 30 years from now, rising sea levels and so on... What about right now? Thousands of people are dying from pollution. People are living with cancer [because of air pollution]...There are people stuck in cancer wards now, tubes sticking out of them - 7 million people die a year because of pollution. We should be talking about that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/07/arnold-schwarzenegger-climate-campaigns-need-focus-right-now-not-2050

Fretwired

ICBM said:

The idea of putting diesel engines in small cars for anything other than motorway driving is completely counterproductive - the problem is that now having sold so many, it's going to be politically difficult to reverse the policy, and even harder to discourage the use of the ones already sold by raising the price of diesel to accurately reflect the impact it has - but it should be much more expensive, because the "better mpg" from diesel is because each litre contains far more carbon than a litre of petrol.

The EU is depressed economically. Instead of pumping billions into banks remove diesel cars and older trucks from the roads through a buy-back scheme starting with the oldest most polluting cars. Car companies should stop making new diesels and people should be forced into buying petrol engines. It would boost the economy.