Climate Change is happening.
But, like young Sheldon, I have questions.
The UK’s carbon emissions are, according to the government’s official figures, 1.1%, while China, USA, India, Russia and Japan produce 58% between them: will the UK reducing its output by 1.1% to zero make any substantive difference to carbon levels and the climate?
Why, as Tony Blair asked last week, are ordinary households being expected to foot the bill for the UK government’s net zero measures? Why not those who produce the most carbon?
When China alone produces 28% of the world’s emissions, and is doing nothing to reduce these – in fact it is increasing them year on year – what use will it be if the UK impoverishes itself in its drive to net zero?
Why does the UK government feel the need to regard itself as a world leader in the drive to net zero when no-one cares what the UK is doing?
Is net zero achievable when the generation of power always produces some level of pollution? How is global net zero achievable when powers like China and Russia refuse to reduce their carbon emissions?
If there is widescale changeover to electric vehicles by 2030 (a UK target for new cars) will there be enough electricity to power them? How will all this extra electricity be generated?
Given most carbon emissions worldwide are from electricity plants, why is the population being ‘encouraged’ to change from oil powered vehicles to electric ones that require electricity plants to create their fuel?
Why do Just Stop Oil and other eco-activists travel to their demonstrations in transport powered by oil and other fossil fuels? Why do they heat their homes using these same fuels? Why do they have mobile phones made from plastic derived from oil, to communicate with each other? Why don’t they demonstrate themselves the kind of behaviour they demand from everyone else?
Why does one of Just Stop Oil‘s leading spokespersons, Dr Grahame Buss, take a £1 million pound pension from Shell Oil while demanding ‘the masses’ must be the ones to make radical changes?
Why do politicians travel by private jet and in motorcades to Climate Change conferences? Why don’t they demonstrate themselves the kind of behaviour they demand from everyone else?
Why, when climate is defined as weather over prolonged periods of time, does the media show us pictures of isolated weather conditions to illustrate climate change?
Do forests spontaneously and naturally combust?
Did the recent wildfires in Greece and elsewhere spontaneously combust as the direct result of high atmospheric temperatures or were they, as the evidence suggests, started either deliberately or through human carelessness? If so, why does the media portray them as examples of the effects of climate change?
Who decided that scrub and undergrowth in forests should no longer be cleared? Why did they, when layers of scrub and undergrowth, once alight, ensure fires spread more rapidly?
If, according to NASA, there has been a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year (and) between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent’, why are recent, highly localised fires being represented – even by NASA! – as an increase attributable to climate change?
According to UN Secretary General António Guterres, ‘the era of global warming has ended. The era of global boiling has arrived’. What exactly is it that is ‘boiling’? Is it oceans, rivers and lakes? Soil and rocks? Animal bodies? If so, where is the evidence that this is happening? Is such alarmist hyperbole persuasive or remotely helpful in combatting climate change? Or does it lead ‘the masses’ to believe politicians exaggerate the extent of climate change?
Can we slow down or even reverse climate change when it is a natural, inevitable part of nature’s cycle and, in terms of our own contribution, the biggest polluters are not interested?
Are we all doomed?
rejectingjesus, 
Hysteria drives sales…
Sales of whatever the New Fad is.
However, that said, the UKs push for a 0 footprint is the standard that everyone should aim for.
It might be a little unreasonable at this stage to expect countries such as India and China to fall into line, especially with their levels of poverty and the disparity between rich and poor.
But I can’t see any real reason why the US is not
getting its proverbial arse into gear?
That said, I for one consider it is brilliant the UK seems to lead the pack in this regard.
They haven’t done anything as momentous since they won the World Cup in ’66. 😄
New technologies are developed as a result…some good, some not so good, but we move forward, sometimes we meander a bit along the way but we move forward nevertheless.
So lead by example.
God save the Queen … er… King.
That’s my rant for the morning.
I’m off to check my veggies, ( got some super caulis this year!) sow a few tomato seeds, some runner beans and see if the gardener has turned the compost heap.
LikeLike
Hysteria: that’s it. Our politicians are floundering around, getting people worked up, adding green taxes to energy bills (tax which doesn’t go to projects designed to reach net zero target but into government coffers) while issuing new oil and gas licences and yet bombarding us on a day basis with how the end is nigh unless we do something urgently.
LikeLike
Neil: Given most carbon emissions worldwide are from electricity plants, why is the population being ‘encouraged’ to change from oil powered vehicles to electric ones that require electricity plants to create their fuel?
HN: Because electric vehicles are massively more efficient at energy transfer from source to the road. For you typical ICE somewhere around 15-20% of the energy actually propels the vehicle forward. Most of the energy is lost before it does much. EV’s have an efficiency of around 90%, and are even able to recover some of their kinetic energy through regenerative braking. Even if they were powered by coal, an EV would still produce less CO2 emissions than a gas powered ICE.
Neil: Can we slow down or even reverse climate change when […] the biggest polluters are not interested?
HN: Are you suggesting that because big players are apathetic, we should be too? Does the fact that somebody else is doing something bad, perhaps on an even larger scale, make your bad actions acceptable? Is that how you want to rationalize away not doing anything about a problem?
I’d remind you that slavery wasn’t ended in a day either. Lots of countries took a stand on slavery, taking the possible economic hit, even while other major players said “I don’t care, our economy is more important.” Eventually the others came around, but it doesn’t excuse those who understood what harm their actions were causing.
Maybe climate change can’t be stopped at this point. I don’t have the answer there. But if we don’t try, and start somewhere, we’re definitely going to fail. China sure as hell isn’t going to do anything if all other industrialized countries say “no our economy is too important.”
LikeLike
No, merely asking questions.
While more efficient on the road, electric vehicles are far less efficient to construct, particularly their batteries. Have a look and see for yourself the issues involved. They will also leave the West heavily dependent on imports from China. I suspect EVs are not the way forward. A drastic reduction in vehicles worldwide would seem to be the only way to reduce atmospheric pollution and I’m not convinced that’s going to happen.
As for the benefit of the UK eliminating its overall contribution of 1.1%, which is all it can eliminate, is that going to have any impact at all on the environment? Again, I ask the question from a practical point of view. If the U.S. reduced its contribution by the same amount, would that have any impact? I’m afraid not. Does that mean the UK shouldn’t try, given the unintended consequences that would follow? I don’t know.
LikeLike
“electric vehicles are far less efficient to construct, particularly their batteries”
Yes, but that’s a fixed cost, and that cost becomes smaller (compared to an ICE) the more an electric vehicle is driven. Yes, there’s the environmental costs of mining, and everything else.
“I suspect EVs are not the way forward”
I’ll go further and say that I don’t think EV are a solution at all. At best the change the nature of the problem. My position has been that private personal automobiles for transportation needs to be seriously challenged, but we in the West are addicted to our cars. I can’t see people willing giving up their cars, and they won’t accept them taken by force either.
“As for the benefit of the UK reducing its overall contribution by 1%, which is all it can reduce it by, is that going to have any impact at all on the environment?”
Only 1%? That seems REALLY low. It looks like the UK has already done away with coal, so that’s already big start there. The amount of fossil fuels used for agriculture is enormous, and in general we use somewhere between 10-100 calories of fossil fuels to produce, grow, and transport, 1 calorie of food energy. It’s just so inefficient. Reducing food, and how we grow food, will be important there. Changing laws around best before dates (most food is still perfectly edible well after the best before date) would help reduce food waste.
Apparently central gas heat is the most common home heating method in the UK. Since you don’t tend to get the cold winters than I do over on the other side of the pond, heat exchanges are a much more efficient method of heating. The best you can get from a central heat furnace is somewhere around 90% efficiency, while heat exchangers can get upwards of 200-300% efficiency.
“If the US reduced its by the same amount, would that have any impact?”
The US still gets about 20% of its electricity from coal. Just shifting to NG fired power plants would give them more than 1%. But they’re doing better than that by increasing renewables. Shifting people to heat exchangers, rather than using gas, would also have an impact. The same story for food waste applies here too.
“Does that mean the UK shouldn’t try, given the unintended consequences that would follow?”
We have a good idea of what the consequences are if we do nothing. This summer has just been the start. You had a pretty hot summer last year as I recall, and each year is more likely to get worse. Expect food security to become a more pressing problem.
At this point I’m reasonably convinced that we will not act sufficiently to stop severe climate change within the next 50 years. There’s too many people living a lifestyle that our planet cannot sustain, and the human population is still increasing. I just don’t think we can muster the political will to override our collective greed. So there are two questions on my mind: What can we do to make these consequences take as long as possible (because there will be severe economic costs that come with them in the future), and what can we do to mitigate those consequences that will almost inevitably happen within this generations life time?
LikeLike
Yes, I take your point. However, we need a relatively strong economy to afford the necessary measures. This we have not got, thanks in no small part to lockdown. The measures themselves would then, as you concede, systematically weaken the economy still further, making the implementation of their later stages all the more unaffordable.
All of this to eliminate the UK’s 1.1% contribution to global emissions. (Yes, it really is this small; see the links to reputable sites that I provided.)
Let’s you and I come back in 2030 and see how we’re getting on, shall we?
LikeLike
I misunderstood what you meant by 1%. I thought you meant a 1% reduction of their contribution, not 1% of the global total.
LikeLike
To address the point your raise a couple of times, whether our economy is ‘too important’, that is something we need to ask ourselves as a nation because without a healthy economy, we cannot have a healthy society. Certainly not to the extent we knew pre-Covid nor even now, post-lockdown.
The economy ensures, through taxation, that we have reasonably well functioning schools, hospitals, police, justice system, prisons, emergency and social services, local government, central government, welfare system, subsidised transport, social housing, accommodation for migrants – all of those things we value in British society and invariably take for granted. If we are prepared to sacrifice these to a significant degree in order to pursue net zero, then so be it, but we need to be made aware of the consequences and to be consulted about whether that is the way we want to go. If we do, then let’s by all means press on reducing our carbon contribution by what is a tiny amount in global terms and accept the cost to the economy and society. If, alternatively, we want to compromise, by maintaining services as far as were able while reducing our carbon output to a lesser degree, than that too might be fine; but we would no longer be talking about net zero.
The issue is by no means as simple as our eco-agitators, media, politicians and, yes, some scientists would have us believe.
LikeLike
Can you have a healthy economy when trillions are spent every year on recovering from the effects of climate change, including flood, fire, and dealing with farmers who have failed crops, to name a few of the problems?
People seem to act as though doing nothing about climate change means we don’t pay any costs. There are costs to our inaction and continuing down the road we’re on. For decades we’ve relies on the idea that we can just keep growing the economy forever, and we’ll never have to pay the price for that perpetual growth, and with it the ever increasing use of resources beyond what the planet can sustain. Our entire economic model is, fundamentally, unsustainable. That’s where the problem lies.
Climate change is really just a symptom of a wider systemic problem.
LikeLike
There are studies that show CO2 levels actually follow the temperature spikes. Global warming is likely caused by something else, like solar activity.
LikeLike
Basically, the study you site where CO2 levels follow temperature increases is from the end of an ice age 250,000 years ago. It demonstrates the natural climate change caused by the earth’s rotation and orbit. Climate change that takes tens of thousands of years.
The study highlights that today’s climate change is different. Today CO2 is leading, and causing, very unnatural warming. Our manmade climate change is happening in hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands. Giving plants and animals, including humans, very little time to adapt.
LikeLike