COP26 (UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties) Discussion

[Ross90]

6 hours ago, Yarmy said:

Sort of...but that's talking about safety in the workplace, whereas Joe Public is more worried about Chernobyl 2. If a wind turbine collapses it's not going to spread radioactive material across the country.

Still, modern reactors are much safer, and so I'm pro-Nuclear, but we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Wind, tidal, solar are all worth investing in. And Fusion could be viable by the end of this decade, which would be a complete game-changer.

I'm sure somebody came up with an idea to put solar panels around the equator of the moon, something that could in theory provide enough electricity to power everything if there was a viable way to transport it back here. Unsurprising when he said it would cost 2.5 trillion and take decades to finish nobody took him up on it but it's large scale projects like that which would make the most difference.

[Skullzrulerz]

 

 

 

[matty40s]

On 10/11/2021 at 16:32, Skullzrulerz said:

 

 

 

India is plenty rich enough, it's just that its money is in less than 1% of its citizens pockets.

 

On 09/11/2021 at 20:25, Ross90 said:

I'm sure somebody came up with an idea to put solar panels around the equator of the moon, something that could in theory provide enough electricity to power everything if there was a viable way to transport it back here. 

Covering most of Australias outback along with the Sahara and Sahel would provide more than enough power without having to use space ships.

[Ross90]

I have wondered about solar panels in sunny deserted areas but I suppose the lack of infrastructure would hold it back as well as the fact that they would get covered in sand and need cleaned/repaired regularly.

[Derecho]

On 09/11/2021 at 11:50, Mucka said:

'I couldn't ski for three days': Team GB snowboarder on climate change.

 

yes this a real BBC headline.

But don't worry the BBC have interviewed that well known climate clown Ocasio-Cortez "pushing the bounds on climate," I should coco.

Meanwhile insider trading billionaire Pelosi has arrived, she may not be as wealthy as some of the other elite who have told us how we need to live like 3rd world peasants while they live in opulence and rule over us, but she is no less the "philanthropist" dedicating her life to the betterment of herself at the cost of others. At least I think that is what a philanthropist is given who the media label philanthropic.

I have been most moved thus far by Bezos who had his climate epiphany while floating above Earth in his personal rocket ship. People like him understand that to be a true humanitarian you must pay your staff such low wages they need tax payer subsidies and food stamps to sustain them while he swans around on a fleet of private jets, and sales on his super yacht to his private island and stays in his multi billion complexes to rest his poor weary soul.

Those speaking at Cop26 own over 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth between them and plan to make that 100%.

Blackrock, Vanguard, Morgan Chase and the central banks who basically run the world have been a little shy though, not sure why since wealth and power are clearly the most important criteria  on who gets to issue diktats in this world technocratic governance, oh I mean talk at the climate conference.

Pretty ironic that for years and years, those who were advocating for action on anthropogenic climate change were made out to be communist anti-capitalist by deniers... and now that the technology is improving to the extent it's becoming a viable alternative regardless it's instead being associated with wealth and power.

Yes in my view technology still needs to improve to make changes easier but it is time for fossil fuels to take a step down... in fact that should have been a long time ago but fossil fuel companies purposefully stifled the progression of new technologies.

BP, Shell and Exxon have made almost $2tn in profit since 1990 when the issue of AGW was already well known, not exactly on the same scale as Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi (who isn't a billionaire). So some pretty flawed logic there.

Do those speaking at COP really own two thirds of the worlds wealth?, got a reference to back that up?

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Polar.]

Sky news

"'Disappointing' the UK hasn't signed up to alliance to phase out oil and gas production, charity says

An alliance has been formed, led by Denmark and Costa Rica, by to help phase out the production of oil and gas - but the UK is not involved.

Danish climate minister Dan Jorgensen says he hoped it would mark "the beginning of the end of oil and gas", adding that they were in conversations with other countries including Scotland.

A UK government spokesperson says while the UK's reliance on fossil fuels "continues to fall", there will "continue to be ongoing but diminishing need for oil and gas over the coming years while we ramp up renewable energy capacity".

But Oxfam's climate policy adviser Lyndsay Walsh said: "It is disappointing that the UK government has not signed up to this welcome initiative.

"The UK may have led the way on committing to net zero emissions, but it must now address the epic contradiction of continuing to grant oil and gas licences in the North Sea."

The core members are Denmark, Costa Rica, France, Ireland, Wales, Sweden, Greenland and Quebec, while Portugal, California and New Zealand are associate members and Italy is supporting it as a "friend".

The core countries are committing to end new licensing for oil and gas exploration and setting an end date for their exploration, while associate members are taking other measures that contribute to aligning oil and gas production with globally agreed goals to limit dangerous warming."

[Ross90]

Quebec and California... since when could individual regions or states make decisions like that? If the US gov decided to go against it there's really not much that an individual state can do.

[Skullzrulerz]

 

 

 

[SnowBear]

As COP 26 comes to a close i don't think I've heard one mention of the needless amount of fuel used on the daily school run, often even less than half a mile, and how crazy it is to take your children to school in a neighbouring town, and then that town sends kids to a school in your own town. 

I walked to school all the way through my school life, in all weathers. Did me no harm nor anyone else I know. 

If we are to cut emmisions then all aspects of life need looking at, and that includes wasteful journies such as the school run. 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by SnowBear
Spelling

[Ross90]

The thing is a big chunk of the population just won't get on board with changes that either require more effort or more money. I fall into that category with some things too as i'm sure most people do. This is why the greens never have a proper breakthrough and why the gov will never force through big changes. Climate change just isn't the number 1 priority.

[Gowon]

12 minutes ago, SnowBear said:

As COP 26 comes to a close i don't think I've heard one mention of the needless amount of fuel used on the daily school run, often even less than half a mile, and how crazy it is to take your children to school in a neighbouring town, and then that town sends kids to a school in your own town. 

I walked to school all the way through my school life, in all weathers. Did me no harm nor anyone else I know. 

If we are to cut emmisions then all aspects of life need looking at, and that includes wasteful journies such as the school run. 

 

We've all become too dependent with motorised vehicles.. I think we need go back to horse and cart or wooden ships to travel

[SnowBear]

1 minute ago, D.V.R said:

We've all become too dependent with motorised vehicles.. I think we need go back to horse and cart or wooden ships to travel

Nothing wrong with have an oss, they can produce the muck we will need for all the plant food which will have to be grown! Oh, hang on.... More excess wind... Methane... Oops! 

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Ross90 said:

The thing is a big chunk of the population just won't get on board with changes that either require more effort or more money. I fall into that category with some things too as i'm sure most people do. This is why the greens never have a proper breakthrough and why the gov will never force through big changes. Climate change just isn't the number 1 priority.

Unfortunately I think there is some truth in this. There needs to be an economic incentive for people to make transitions. Reward those who make them somehow, it's difficult to know how that can be done. I'm not comfortable with the idea of taxation as that would hurt poorer people more. Increasing the price of fuel for example would hit those with lower incomes because electric cars are still expensive.

Governments need to change the flow of money and have a much bigger drive to transition to better tech.

Sadly I don't think COP will change much.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Midlands Ice Age]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Unfortunately I think there is some truth in this. There needs to be an economic incentive for people to make transitions. Reward those who make them somehow, it's difficult to know how that can be done. I'm not comfortable with the idea of taxation as that would hurt poorer people more. Increasing the price of fuel for example would hit those with lower incomes because electric cars are still expensive.

Governments need to change the flow of money and have a much bigger drive to transition to better tech.

Sadly I don't think COP will change much.

QS...

Welcome to the 'dark' side.

MIA

[Derecho]

Just now, Midlands Ice Age said:

QS...

Welcome to the 'dark' side.

MIA

Don't get me wrong I'm still the biggest advocate for new technologies on here and have made my stance on climate change clear, however I do appreciate the challenges towards transitioning to new technologies on a widespread scale. We should have been at this point in 1990 though not 2020.

COP has done nothing to lift my mood or optimism for the future, just a load of greenwashing and empty words whilst kicking the can down the road. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the public would move to a much greener and sustainable lifestyle if a distinct and obvious economic advantage was there on an individual scale.

But sadly we aren't there yet, electric cars are becoming more widespread but that tipping point hasn't been reached. I'm someone who worries about AGW more then anyone... but more needs to be done to make that transition easier for people to make. I don't believe those changes will happen quick enough unless we see real change being committed by those at the very top.

[cheeky_monkey]

as i said before the world could have built a sheet ton of nuclear power plants ages ago and we wouldn't be in this situation ..job done..no need for inefficient windfarms or solar etc..but thats just too simple

[SnowBear]

2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

as i said before the world could have built a sheet ton of nuclear power plants ages ago and we wouldn't be in this situation ..job done..no need for inefficient windfarms or solar etc..but thats just too simple

Nuclear power presents its own set of problems though, especially storage of spent fuel over hundreds if not thousands of years. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

10 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Don't get me wrong I'm still the biggest advocate for new technologies on here and have made my stance on climate change clear, however I do appreciate the challenges towards transitioning to new technologies on a widespread scale. We should have been at this point in 1990 though not 2020.

COP has done nothing to lift my mood or optimism for the future, just a load of greenwashing and empty words whilst kicking the can down the road. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the public would move to a much greener and sustainable lifestyle if a distinct and obvious economic advantage was there on an individual scale.

But sadly we aren't there yet, electric cars are becoming more widespread but that tipping point hasn't been reached. I'm someone who worries about AGW more then anyone... but more needs to be done to make that transition easier for people to make. I don't believe those changes will happen quick enough unless we see real change being committed by those at the very top.

We are not that far apart any longer.

 I feel that if we are to transform to a successful 'new age' that we need a change in approach.

It will not be achieved if we leave it to the politicians.

There are so many problems left unspoken...

Nuclear is the way forward and has been so for many years.

Thorium  (if only) will solve the issues that Snowbear refers to.

Small nuclear reactors a very good short term compromise.

A probably more major problem is the energy that will be required in a new world order (Mass affordable transport, EV's, air flight, etc)  will be considerably more than today's load on the grid. Most of it will occur overnight. Today's grid will not be able to cope.

Lets assume that everyone has an EV. The power requirement overnight to power up the batteries will be huge (and that is quite apart from the huge infrastructure requirements). That means that solar is knocked out straight away. It also cuts out some of wind power, So where do we get the extra energy? 

But how can/do ministers and politicians resolve these  sort of issues? 

The answer is that they cannot.

They must (as you suggest) incentivise(?) companies to do the research. Yes, even the oil majors, to be able to  move forward quickly and avoid hitting social issues.. Taxing everyone and every company is the wrong direction. We will need more energy in the future, and yet we are still knocking out our energy sources and providers, before we have anything that can really replace them.. 

  

 Wind - light blue, gas and nuclear dominate.... solar ?????.

Right now, above is a snapshot of the energy production on a normal Saturday morning, dominated by cloud and little wind.!!  

Something we can learn form the pandemic is that  giving  the correct motivation, funding and infrastructure to industry in order to make the large changes required quickly is the best way forward,  not regressive taxation. 

Can I try to cheer you up. I think we will meet the target of 1.5C (well less than 2,0C anyway), though possibly not by the means you may agree with.

 MIA

Edited November 13, 2021 by Midlands Ice Age

[Wheezer]

The people  that have EVs or will have , is because for them and their lifestyle it is relatively convenient.  Their job or where they can plug in overnight is not a problem.  But this scenario is , in the overall scheme of things rare or limited and will remain so for quite some time.  

[Nick L]

14 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

The people  that have EVs or will have , is because for them and their lifestyle it is relatively convenient.  Their job or where they can plug in overnight is not a problem.  But this scenario is , in the overall scheme of things rare or limited and will remain so for quite some time.  

The issues of charging the things cannot continue to be ignored. What do people who live in flats or terraced housing with no driveways do? This issue cannot continue to be kicked down the road if they want to bin petrol/diesel cars in the next 10 years.

[SnowBear]

14 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

The people  that have EVs or will have , is because for them and their lifestyle it is relatively convenient.  Their job or where they can plug in overnight is not a problem.  But this scenario is , in the overall scheme of things rare or limited and will remain so for quite some time.  

I read some time ago that, I think it was the Post Office, were going to go for EVs in London, but advised not to because the power grid wouldn't have been able to cope. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

On 13/11/2021 at 12:23, Nick L said:

The issues of charging the things cannot continue to be ignored. What do people who live in flats or terraced housing with no driveways do? This issue cannot continue to be kicked down the road if they want to bin petrol/diesel cars in the next 10 years.

It's an indication of the scale of change needed and the lack of planning in so many countries. Towns and cities should have had more public transport investment for decades, wiping out the need for personal vehicles for most journeys.

In Ireland, there are consultation processes going on regarding wiring up high density housing for EVs. Who pays for installation, maintenance, etc, is a big argument. Another problem with the lack of planning.

That being said, it's possible to take cues from Norway. Most of the cars on their roads are EVs now, and nearly 80% of new car sales there are EVs. As well as all the incentives in terms of cost and parking, they have 1000s of rapid charging stations (>100km range in a few mins), one for every 50km of road.

But, many countries have been governed by short sighted buffoons or leaders in the pockets of large industries for decades, leaving most people stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Gowon]

We need find another way of making tyres because EV's still pollute the planet with the tiny fragments of rubber that come off the tyres and end up in the oceans.. They're also heavier than your average car. 

 

[Ross90]

13 hours ago, SnowBear said:

Nuclear power presents its own set of problems though, especially storage of spent fuel over hundreds if not thousands of years. 

It would no doubt be billed as polluting space by some but why not just send spent/unusable nuclear material off planet?

 

When it comes to electric cars my view is that they would need to be subsidised in some way for the take up to increase. If not then it'll be at least 30 years before they make up the majority of cars on the road and by that time we might have fully self driving cars anyway. Charging points need to be increased too or new tech has to come up with a way to charge them without needing charging points.

 

Making houses more energy efficient will be far more problematic and require billions just to replace boilers. There is no quick fix and trying to force things through short term when the cost is too high and the infrastructure isn't in place will only cause more problems.

[SnowBear]

9 minutes ago, Ross90 said:

It would no doubt be billed as polluting space by some but why not just send spent/unusable nuclear material off planet?

Too risky, its not what is to be done with its once its in space, that's easy, send it on a course for the sun, it's getting it into orbit that's the problem. A high altitude failure could spread radioactive debris across vast areas. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by SnowBear
Spelling