I cant believe I just read what I read...

[Chilly]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Rich 'can pay poor to cut carbon'

Let's spend all day moaning about global warming and telling everyone to turn their TV's off, and then just forget about it...

Paying poor countries to use less fossil fuels so WE can live an absurdly luxurious lifestyle at the expense of their economy (sound familiar? Empire-thinking) is just fucking wrong.

I'm getting sicker and sicker of government attitude to the environment: its all half assed measures that do nothing. Germany actually said that by increasing their emissions, they will be decreasing their emissions.....yeah nice one.

Carbon trading is a scam, its a waste of time and a diversion to make us think we are helping. What we SHOULD be doing is pouring 5% of our GDP into fusion research and just get it fucking done. None of this fucking about with tiny £50Bn budgets and squabbling over where the tokamak goes.

Grrr!

 

[dysfunction]

i quite agree.

This whole thing is a scam. The earth is warming up. Fine I can deal with that as there is scientific evidence that it is but its been warming up for well over 500 years!!

You can't blame that on carbon emiisions! Its what the world does. It goes in cycles of cold to hot to cold.

Governments love to capitlise on anything that thye can make a quick buck on. And first world Countries love it even more if they can drive a third world country into more poverty and hold back its development any way they can.

Its all loads of bullshit.

 

[Wij]

Nuclear power > fossil/alternative-toss

 

[Kryten]

it's all utter bollocks.
They're blaming anything and everything on this "global warming" just because it's a convenient scapegoat. They can't understand something, so lets make it the fault of all Humans - perhaps with the exception of Richard Briers and Felicty Kendal.

If you read up into it, it all just goes in circles, so it's entirely clear most of it is bollocks. Reducing emmisions has many other benefits but the earths atmosphere is not really one of them.
Those holes in the ozone that "suddenly appeared". All these science people will spend hours arguing that since being able to see this ozone thing, they've found a hole. And it's only just appeared.
So if they've only just been able to see it, how do they not know it wasn't there before?

It was. Probably for hundreds of years. When the only emissions that might be considered nasty were some attempts at Alchemy and a few hundred cows farts.

Whole argument I can't be fucked to go into, really. I'm not a scientist, but my mind works in black and white. I'd like to see any of these science people prove anything, i mean REALLY prove it.

But original subject withstanding - yeah, that news article made me laugh. Double standards if anything.

 

[Raven]

I had the heating on last night, burn more plastic and coal please.

 

[Draylor]

Heh, you know carbon trading is a farce when F1 can legitimately claim to be carbon-neutral.

 

[Opt1]

Erm, from a scientific point of view, global warming is absolutely true. All major scientific bodies acknowledge that - and they're pretty damn strict about evidence.. Denying it is naive and what the oil companies want you to do.

Seriously, we're suddenly, in the last 100 years, pumping TONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere that was never there before, and you think that's not going to be a bad thing or have any effect at all???? You're living in a dream world.

And the Ozone layer.. read the evidence, please. Then read some about skin cancer.

But yes, carbon trading is a joke and needs to be fixed. But so is the idea that we can pump whatever the hell we like into the atmosphere and into the oceans and get away with it scot free.

And I'm with Chilly 100% on everything he says - its frigging stupid and more needs to be done (correction: something constructive needs to be done, fs).

 

[Chilly]

Global warming is, sadly, a fact. Pretending otherwise is suicidal (perhaps not for us, but for our childeren, at least).

 

[pez]

Sure the earth goes in a cylce of hot and cold but there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the ice record, which is hundreds of thousands of years.

Humans are affecting the environment, its just a question of how much, how fast.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You can't blame that on carbon emiisions! Its what the world does. It goes in cycles of cold to hot to cold.

Same bloody thing with my girlfriend!

I try to tell her not to blame it all on gas emissions

But to be serious, i read somewhere that the CO2 main source is living. Yes, around 75% if i remember correctly, comes from people living, heat from that etc.

So basically we're just f*cking up the air by living here. Ironic eh?

Also, like george carlin said, "It's not the planet that's f*cked, it's the people. The planet is fine and will survive."

Can't remember who talked about the ozone layer, but he said: "Before you mentioned it, i didn't even know we had an ozone layer! Also, can it be fixed? No? then shut the f*ck up about it!"

 

[DaGaffer]

Sure the earth goes in a cylce of hot and cold but there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the ice record, which is hundreds of thousands of years.

Humans are affecting the environment, its just a question of how much, how fast.

So? A few hundred thousand years is nothing in geological terms. People tend to forget we evolved during an ice age. If the climate changes, we'll adapt to it, its what humans do. The idea that we somehow lock the atmosphere into an acceptable (to us) condition, for ever, is hubris in the extreme; this is what pisses me off about C02 hysteria, no-one's thinking it through for the long term, other than a few nutters who'd like to see us all living in Yurts with a life-expectancy of about 35. And by "us all" I actually mean, them and maybe a stable human population of about 500 million.

Oh, and yes carbon-offsetting is bollocks, but it's hardly surprising that such a cynical system is developing, when the whole C02 debate is seen by government as a fantastic way to raise taxes.

 

[Chilly]

Why are you arguing about it? Go and a buy a copy of nature and stand corrected.

This is the problem, some people still think its not happening and slow any progress we try to make down by arguing that its all rubbish.

 

[Chilly]

Oh, and yes carbon-offsetting is bollocks, but it's hardly surprising that such a cynical system is developing, when the whole C02 debate is seen by government as a fantastic way to raise taxes.

If our government tackled CO2 emissions in any meaningful way it's gonna cost us a shit load - hundreds of billions. It will make waging war look cheap. Adding the odd "green tax" to this and that will no where near pay for it.

 

[Opt1]

Sure, the earth will survive, but a VERY large proportion of the earth's population won't.

Why? Because huge areas of the earth become desert wasteland (e.g. most of Europe, US, etc.), weather systems become more erratic and more extreme (more hurricanes) and the sea levels rise enough to put large amounts of countries underwater.

I'd like to see what that does to the average life expectancy and global population.

We've screwed Africa over enough throughout history.. think what this would do to them.

And the green campaigners don't want to lose healthcare, living standards, etc. - they just want governments to spend more on developing greener energy production and fuel - much of which is existing technology that hasn't been developed sufficiently yet.

The only reason coal, oil and gas energy sources are preferable is because so much money has been gone into developing them to make them cheaper over the years (so companies can rake in the profit) - which can be done for other energy sources.

If you think it's something we can just leave to develop as it chooses, and ignore, then you don't really understand the impact and effects it's going to have, which are massive and crippling.

And I'm going to assume the people taking the "It'll sort itself out" standpoint don't live in Africa..

 

[Opt1]

And go watch An Inconvenient Truth..

 

[Guest]

that shangrila song by the kinks is good though.............. one good thing about global warming, i got to listen to that song

 

[dysfunction]

If our government tackled CO2 emissions in any meaningful way it's gonna cost us a shit load - hundreds of billions. It will make waging war look cheap. Adding the odd "green tax" to this and that will no where near pay for it.

if this country stopped producing any CO2 at all it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to glbal warming. why I hear you ask. Well because the likes of india, Africa, China and the USA are producing 90% of the all the CO2 that the worlds countries produce.

Thats why this whole "green tax" crap is a sham.

Yes we have to start somewhere i hear you say. But Place like India, China and Africa are not going to stop producing CO2 because they are developing nations and burning fossile fuels just like Europe did when it was developing are their only viable options at this point in time.

You can't punish them because of the developed worlds lack of care in the past.

Also The world will carry on warming up...perhaps at a slower rate than if we were not producing so much CO2...and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

No country or even groups of countries can have any major control over world climates...and thats a fact. Until they can all we can do try and limit our damage to the environment but it won't have a lasting impact.

 

[Chilly]

Ok dysfunction, I take your point and agree with you to some extent.

however, what we can do is use our superior technology and research infrastructure (we being anywhere that you can get a phd in something with more than 30 letters ) to develop cleaner technologies (such as fusion).

If we dont do anything about our own emissions, other countries will just say "well if the UK, the 4th (i think) biggest economy on the planet can't be arsed, why should we?". We are leaders of sorts whether we like it or not and should act as such by leading the way with green policies. I'm not talking about fuelling cars with biodiesel (which is also a scam - not enough acreage on the planet to grow enough and still have food). I'm talking about significant, immediate and binding action with regard to indistrial standards, the number of cars on the road and our research into new power generation technologies.

If we develop even a 101% fusion system (by that I mean you get out 101% of the energy you expend to sustain the reaction) the world will change overnight and india, china, africa simply wont NEED to burn fuels because we can just install fusion plants around and generate clean power on the cheap.

Sadly, governments are run by oil barons who are vehemently against such obviously evil technology and try as hard as they can to resist. BP may well have a future enegry department but only because they know that the oil will run out and they dont want to go bust when it does.

 

[DaGaffer]

Sure, the earth will survive, but a VERY large proportion of the earth's population won't.

Why? Because huge areas of the earth become desert wasteland (e.g. most of Europe, US, etc.), weather systems become more erratic and more extreme (more hurricanes) and the sea levels rise enough to put large amounts of countries underwater.

You have no way to know this. On any particular day a climate report will claim Europe is going to be a desert, or under ice because the gulfstream switches off, or underwater because the icecaps have melted, or even that northern Europe will have a pleasant climate (which funnily enough it did a 1000 years ago, its part of the reason for nordic fecundity that lead to the Vikings). Bottom line is, nobody knows but disaster sells more newspapers and gets bigger research grants.

I'd like to see what that does to the average life expectancy and global population.

We've screwed Africa over enough throughout history.. think what this would do to them.

Who knows? And to be honest I don't really care.

And the green campaigners don't want to lose healthcare, living standards, etc. - they just want governments to spend more on developing greener energy production and fuel - much of which is existing technology that hasn't been developed sufficiently yet.

The only reason coal, oil and gas energy sources are preferable is because so much money has been gone into developing them to make them cheaper over the years (so companies can rake in the profit) - which can be done for other energy sources.

These would be the same green campaigners protesting outside Sizewell last week? Wind, water and solar will NEVER supply our energy needs adequately. Nuclear is the only answer. I agree that we should be reducing dependence on fossil fuels, but not because of C02, simply because hydrocarbons are too damn useful to simply burn.

If you think it's something we can just leave to develop as it chooses, and ignore, then you don't really understand the impact and effects it's going to have, which are massive and crippling.

It doesn't matter. You can believe what you like, and the west can waste trillions trying to 'fix' the atmosphere, and it won't work. The very existence of six billion people on the planet will see to that.

And I'm going to assume the people taking the "It'll sort itself out" standpoint don't live in Africa..

You're right, but only because they've got more important things to worry about.

 

[dysfunction]

The thing is if you want to make an impact you can't phase in this stuff over the next 20 years. Its too late. It would need to be done right now!

The energy companies could have altered their energy methods years and years ago. But they couldn't be bothered....and governments should have forced them to do this 50 years ago.

But it all boils down to money so nothing got done cos there is lots of money in "limited" resources. Oil is not going to run out any time soon and there is loads of money still to be made from it so not much is going to change.

And BP are full of shit....

 

[Chilly]

Well, whatever happens, I'm never going to buy a property thats got any risk at all of flooding (now and in 15m of water's time).

 

[MYstIC G]

God you all can talk a lot of shit sometimes.

1. Government exists to tax, always has, always will. Deal with it or buy your own island somewhere.
2. Who cares about the US/India/China's CO² emissions? At the end of the day, they're gonna do what they want, just like the UK is.
3. The only thing to do with environmental stuff is become the world leader at design, supply & install so we make some fucking money. UK is noted for the industrial revolution, now it should go for it again just with a bit more green paint this time.
4. Carbon offsetting is bullshit. However as long as the rich are lazy and the poor are struggling & as greedy as the rich, they will sell out because they have sufficient motivation to do so.

Best thing we can all realistically do afaic is turn stuff off when we're not using it because frankly, we have for the majority become lazy in this respect and not doing it just costs us money anyway.

 

[pez]

I think all this stuff about Europe being able to do nothing is bollocks. We're a very influential political group and taking a leading role on an issue would make a difference, just look at carbon trading and California for gods sake.

International treaties on things like this are extremely hard to create and impossible to enforce but they can be overall quite successful.

Going back to the point about CO2 emissions and hundreds of thousands of years, yes it does change that much over that sort of timeframe. You would have to be clinically retarded or a republican to look at CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution, compare them to any other time on record and go, 'oh no its just natural, i'm sure its just a coincidence.'

This debate is pretty redundant anyway imo. In this country atleast it has moved on from whether we are causing climate change to how fast we are causing it, how we are causing it, what the fall out will be and what we can do.

Did no one even read the summary of the Stern report, and more importantly the counter-arguements?

 

[Trem]

Pollution causes global dimming, global dimming blocks UV rays, get rid of pollution and the UV rays have a clearer run at our faces. Its a double edged sword but the governments never mention global dimming do they?

Lets see them wipe out pollution then see what happens to our skin and children.

 

[Chilly]

That's a very simplistic view to take trem. Global dimming is a small effect compared to warming, and the same process that creates dimming creates warming.

Buy a hat if you are scared of the sun.

 

[MYstIC G]

Don't encourage him! If he buys a hat, he'll only end up buying Oddjob's one from the bond films and slicing off his own arm or something!

 

[Ch3tan]

lol. Then he can be a wierd half- le chiffre half oddjob carnival attraction.

 

[Trem]

That's a very simplistic view to take trem. Global dimming is a small effect compared to warming, and the same process that creates dimming creates warming.

Buy a hat if you are scared of the sun.

I aren't scared of the sun and why is it simplistic. Is it wrong?

Global dimming is causing alot of the things that they blame global warming on, droughts and stuff like that. Global dimming affects clouds.

Yes it is the same thing as global warming but its global dimming that should be blamed for much of the stuff thats going on.

I didn't realise I could only have a say on these things if I made it complicated, pardon me for that.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of 6°C. But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out. This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers. As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control. "We're going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we'll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us"

That better, does that make what I was saying easier for you to read now its a quote from the BBC website?

 

[Tom]

Seriously, we're suddenly, in the last 100 years, pumping TONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere that was never there before, and you think that's not going to be a bad thing or have any effect at all???? You're living in a dream world.

Tonnes eh? Wow. Never there before? Thats a new one. Perhaps you should ask your scientists to educate you.

Wake up son.

 

[Tom]

there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the ice record, which is hundreds of thousands of years.

No there isn't.