The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

1961Nick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Nothing at all. I just wonder why Ken is so against 2025 yet in favour of 'maybe 2050'. I'd be interested in how he arrived at 2050, whether it had a scientific basis, or just a date pulled from the air?

Globally carbon neutral by 2050 would be quite an achievement if we can do it. A lot will depend on future technological advances & the rate at which we can deploy them on a meaningful scale. On that basis, 30 years might appear to be ambitious, but it's necessary to have a goal to aim at.

2025 is nuts if we want to stay warm & travel further than we can walk.

EricMears

Gosh, this thread is really living up to its "Endless, Pointless & Circular Argument " title !

Perhaps someone else could have a go ? There have been many periods in (geological) history when the Earth was far hotter or colder than it ever has been in recorded history. There are also historical records showing that in Roman times our island was warm enough to support grape growing (which we've almost got back to). On all of those occasions the Earth has managed to 'recover' (or more likely just veer in the other direction). Nobody can be really sure just what the optimum mean temperature of the Earth should be.

I firmly believe that whatever we throw at the Earth, it will recover (though might very well kill off our species in the attempt !).

I do believe that use of fossil fuels should be curtailed. Not for any AGW reason(s) but simply because we've used them faster than they can regenerate and our distant descendants deserve the opportunity to have some of them left.

Also, the earth receives far more solar radiation per unit time than we could ever use. That manifests itself as sunshine for SP (of course) and also causes wind & rain that would be available for WTs & HEP. Hence we really don't need to use up all the !!!!!! now.


And finally, I joined MSE to save money. If I want moral or religious rants I'd join something else.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Are the scientists saying 2050?

Lots of questions but no answers from you.

That was the date I always had in my mind but to indulge you even further I dug this out of the IPCC 2018 report.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.


Now what date had you in mind?

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Lots of questions but no answers from you.

That was the date I always had in my mind but to indulge you even further I dug this out of the IPCC 2018 report.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.


Now what date had you in mind?

Oh, I don't have a date. I don't profess to have all the answers, hence why I'm not shouting down people (or school children) who have a different date in mind, or different solution in mind than me.

I just carry on doing all I can to reduce my impact on the planet as much as possible. It's all we can do on here. As I said at the start of the thread, no one is reading all this, it's not going to be quoted in the houses or parliament. It's just ordinary people with ordinary lives arguing with each other about things they have little or no impact on. They are pointless, circular and irrelevant arguments. Waste of time really, but there you go.

My part in this wasn't a 'debate' as such, I merely wondered why you were so upset about what some kids were saying and (after many posts) it seemed that you were upset because, while you agree with them that the earth is under threat, you disagree with them on the timescale for doing something about it.

JKenH

As you say that was all pretty pointless.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

As you say that was all pretty pointless.

Agreed. If we are not prepared to start a global movement and put ourselves out there for support or derision in equal measure, then all we can do is decide whether we are going to do our bit (and how much we are prepared to do).

Interestingly, EricMears is probably the chief GW denier on here (I don't count that troll chap), yet as an individual he is probably doing the most out of all of us to reduce his carbon footprint.

I've long been a fan of his, but don't tell him that. :shhh:

EricMears

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Agreed. If we are not prepared to start a global movement and put ourselves out there for support or derision in equal measure, then all we can do is decide whether we are going to do our bit (and how much we are prepared to do).

Interestingly, EricMears is probably the chief GW denier on here (I don't count that troll chap), yet as an individual he is probably doing the most out of all of us to reduce his carbon footprint.

I've long been a fan of his, but don't tell him that.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I'm sure I've explained my position in the past but will have another attempt.

I'm not trying to "reduce my carbon footprint" ! I am reducing FF usage out of a sense of duty to yet unborn generations and I have a strong interest in saving money.

If you believe that's going to have any effect on Earth's climate at all, good luck to you but I'm afraid I don't share that view (hope).

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

A couple of weeks ago, Mart, you were saying AGW was your religion.




I am not knocking RE - I support it as most people on here will recognise. What I am criticising is your contamination of a green and ethical money saving board with your moral superiority and endless posts about AGW, the evils of fossil fuels and conspiracy theories. What have these to do with money saving?

I would imagine most people come to MSE forums with money saving in mind, not saving the world. Some are keen to save money in a green and ethical manner and enjoy the technical discussion. But I wonder if anyone is vaguely interested in the endless stream of posts, articles and ‘funny’ left wing videos emanating from the cosy FF heated home of our armchair eco warrior. I am not the one contaminating the board; you are, Mart.

Perhaps you can quote me saying AGW is a religion?

Once again Ken, if you don't like my pro RE comments on a pro RE thread, then you should pop me on ignore, not spend month after month, after month trying to create arguments and spoiling the threads for all.

I also appreciate that as I'm not the greenest person on MSE (a title you seem to have claimed) and you don't therefore believe I have a right to air my opinions, or share news articles and facts that fly in the face of your denials, but it's not up to you. So your constant abuse simply validates my conclusions regarding your motives.

Again, pop me on ignore, clearly my postings on the green energy thread cause you way too much upset, and that is doing no-one any good, especially you.

pile-o-stone

EricMears wrote: »

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I'm sure I've explained my position in the past but will have another attempt.

I'm not trying to "reduce my carbon footprint" ! I am reducing FF usage out of a sense of duty to yet unborn generations and I have a strong interest in saving money.

If you believe that's going to have any effect on Earth's climate at all, good luck to you but I'm afraid I don't share that view (hope).

tut, Eric was eavesdropping.

I don't think that reducing your carbon footprint (aka FF usage) will make any difference at all globally. However, when millions, perhaps billions of Erics, Ernies and Ednas reduce their own carbon footprint to the same extent, then it does make a difference.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Are the scientists saying 2050?

Yes and no.

The scientists are saying that to give us a chance of avoiding runaway GW, then we need to limit the temperature rise to 1.5C+. This won't actually guarantee we won't see runaway GW, but it'll give us a 2:1 chance.

From there, that works out as reducing our net CO2 emissions down to zero by 2050, which would limit the eventual temp rise to 2C+, and deploying carbon removal technology from 2050-2100 to prevent the rising temp from exceeding 1.5C+ and levelling out at 2C+.

Obviously, clearly, logically, anything we do to beat the 2050 timescale, or perhaps to better describe it, anything we do between now and 2050 to reduce the area under the curve of additional CO2 from today till 2050 (assuming we get it down to zero), will give us a better chance of avoiding higher temps, runaway GW, and of course reduce the cost impacts of the 1.5C+ rise.

So 2050 isn't really a 'target', it's more a deadline, and doing more, sooner, will cost us all less in the long run, and possibly in the short and medium term too.

Plus of course, now that we have alternatives to FF's, why would anyone not want to make the World cleaner and sooner. But perhaps that's a logic that only children and young adults can see, as we 'oldies' get blinded to simple logic and facts.


[Note - Small disclaimer, previously a poster(s) has referred to Ms Thunberg as having mental health conditions, and therefore challenged her/her parents for being in such a public position. I think this is something that the autism world would have some objection too, especially in the case of high functioning Asperger's. I also object personally as my Wife volunteers for such a group and attends a 'social group' to help with social intercourse issues. Also Ms Thunberg has referred to her Asperger's as being her 'Superpower', a description and attitude that I admire massively.

What I'm seeing here is excuses from people old enough to know better, because they fear change and the right of the youth to demand this change, a right they fully own, as we have failed them.*]

* Greta Thunberg and other climate activists have said it is a badge of honour that the head of the world’s most powerful oil cartel believes their campaign may be the “greatest threat” to the fossil fuel industry.