Extinction people

[kent_white]

Saw this today - it's scary stuff. New projections of what will be underwater at high tide in some of the world's major cities by 2050.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Saw this today - it's scary stuff. New projections of what will be underwater at high tide in some of the world's major cities by 2050.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

Please see my note from the IEA about wind technology 

[kent_white]

58 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Please see my note from the IEA about wind technology 

Yeah I read it already. Sounds brilliant in principle - but sadly I can't see us investing the necessary money into it.

[Youri McAnespie]

'They' will have released the Doomsday virus long before then, thinning out the plebs to a few handfuls of indentured servants to the rich bastards who had been inoculated.

[London Wanderer]

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

Saw this today - it's scary stuff. New projections of what will be underwater at high tide in some of the world's major cities by 2050.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

Came across this the other day as well. It tells us what we are facing if we stay on our current track to 4 degrees of warming before 2100. Argues that most of the 'fearmongering' spread by XR is actually being backed up scientists. 
http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?fbclid=IwAR0vBGXkVzlABiRW5H5VJnCedTb9ThXN3pNFJswiJYO-krgBG8O_SDukiOU

It's criminal that we have the technology and solutions (as pointed out by BD) but are still investing more into fossil fuels. 

It's unlikely that a planet at 4 degrees would be able to host even a billion people by 2100, with shit hitting the fan long before then. Yet we are about to enter another election dominated by short term goals. 

[bolty58]

6 hours ago, Youri McAnespie said:

'They' will have released the Doomsday virus long before then, thinning out the plebs to a few handfuls of indentured servants to the rich bastards who had been inoculated.

Try putting your shoulder to the wheel and you might be one some day. Lazy glassbacks sit in front lawn settees in Johnny Fow. - probably singing the red flag when they're sober.

[Youri McAnespie]

14 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Try putting your shoulder to the wheel and you might be one some day. Lazy glassbacks sit in front lawn settees in Johnny Fow. - probably singing the red flag when they're sober.

Have you had your crystal ball out again, Mystic Bruce? Don't you realise the practice of necromancy will see thee in hell?

How the fuck do you deduce:

A. I'm not a grafter.

& B. The state of my finances?

I'd guess it's because you're a C.

A fucking arrogant C.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Youri McAnespie

[kent_white]

10 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Came across this the other day as well. It tells us what we are facing if we stay on our current track to 4 degrees of warming before 2100. Argues that most of the 'fearmongering' spread by XR is actually being backed up scientists. 
http://www.climatecodered.org/2019/08/at-4c-of-warming-would-billion-people.html?fbclid=IwAR0vBGXkVzlABiRW5H5VJnCedTb9ThXN3pNFJswiJYO-krgBG8O_SDukiOU

It's criminal that we have the technology and solutions (as pointed out by BD) but are still investing more into fossil fuels. 

It's unlikely that a planet at 4 degrees would be able to host even a billion people by 2100, with shit hitting the fan long before then. Yet we are about to enter another election dominated by short term goals. 

I think that's a lot of the problem. The realities are so stark that people just can't comprehend it and switch off. 

I've heard JC mentioning climate change regularly as part of his election pitch. It's the first time I've heard the leader of a major political party put it fairly central to the electorate. It's still fourth or fifth down the list though and I've not seen any of the detail. But it's encouraging. Be interested to hear if the other parties follow suit. I'd vote for any of the big three that had a coherent and ambitious plan on climate change. Everything else is pretty insignificant by comparison.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 hours ago, kent_white said:

I think that's a lot of the problem. The realities are so stark that people just can't comprehend it and switch off. 

I've heard JC mentioning climate change regularly as part of his election pitch. It's the first time I've heard the leader of a major political party put it fairly central to the electorate. It's still fourth or fifth down the list though and I've not seen any of the detail. But it's encouraging. Be interested to hear if the other parties follow suit. I'd vote for any of the big three that had a coherent and ambitious plan on climate change. Everything else is pretty insignificant by comparison.

I think you will see the climate issue become increasingly important in the election debate. Obviously brexit is big, but that's the mistake the conservative party made last time: too focused on it.

JC has his green deal, which we need to see the detail of, and the government said in one debate recently, that they have more positive environmental policies to announce.

Hopefully we will see.

I know I touched upon this earlier in the thread, but it would be good to effectively take some of this out of party politics. Get cross party support for a baseline position based on scientific evidence.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I think you will see the climate issue become increasingly important in the election debate. Obviously brexit is big, but that's the mistake the conservative party made last time: too focused on it.

JC has his green deal, which we need to see the detail of, and the government said in one debate recently, that they have more positive environmental policies to announce.

Hopefully we will see.

I know I touched upon this earlier in the thread, but it would be good to effectively take some of this out of party politics. Get cross party support for a baseline position based on scientific evidence.

Can’t take it out of politics, really.

On one hand, those who are anti-market, technology and  profit, who can’t really get us out of this.

On the other, those who support the reality of life; that only technology, from investment by companies, individuals and countries, and profit, can secure a sustainable future for the planet.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

Can’t take it out of politics, really.

On one hand, those who are anti-market, technology and  profit, who can’t really get us out of this.

On the other, those who support the reality of life; that only technology, from investment by companies, individuals and countries, and profit, can secure a sustainable future for the planet.

Indeed. If they could agree to a set of rules etc as a minimum though, then seek to add their own bits I'd be happy.

My main concern is that one government sets the ball rolling in one direction and the next then goes off in another; wasting both money and time, which we may be a bit short on.

As an example, perhaps get their heads together and agree a timetable for removing petrol/diesel vehicles by a given date.

Or, look to provide some sort of support/programme of investment to allow the vast majority of households to move away from gas central heating.

 

[Zico]

21 hours ago, kent_white said:

Saw this today - it's scary stuff. New projections of what will be underwater at high tide in some of the world's major cities by 2050.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

At least it's only in Asia

[Tonge moor green jacket]

22 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

At least it's only in Asia

How high is Gonzo land?

[London Wanderer]

5 hours ago, boltondiver said:

Can’t take it out of politics, really.

On one hand, those who are anti-market, technology and  profit, who can’t really get us out of this.

On the other, those who support the reality of life; that only technology, from investment by companies, individuals and countries, and profit, can secure a sustainable future for the planet.

It is hard to take politics out of it. And I think the legistaltion needs to be cross party binding. 

I honestly don't think the climate justice movement is anti-capitalist. It's a common misconception. It's about having a sustainable market and profit at the expense of the environment being criminalised. 

This Exon advert keeps on popping up on my fb feed. 

I'm all for carbon capture, but it's only a fraction of the solution and hasn't properly been invented yet. Reforestation and ocean fertilisation are much cheaper solutions and highly effective carbon capture and they're available right now! 

Exon have just been taken to court over climate denial lobbying and admitted before a panel that they knew the science 30 years ago but actively distorted it. Oil, coal and gas companies have no intention of slowing down production. Now they are unable to distort the science they are trying to greenwash the debate and offset their damage. It's not anti-profit or anti-market to call out their hypocrisy. 

I'm all for companies and governments investing. Just not those fuckers

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by London Wanderer

[London Wanderer]

3 hours ago, ZicoKelly said:

At least it's only in Asia

London is one of the most vulnerable cities in the world from sea level rise. 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londoners-will-face-floods-droughts-and-blackouts-by-2050-caused-by-effects-of-climate-change-a3866391.html

To be fair I've never much liked the place anyway. The North will be full of Londonders though, apart from Millwall fans who I imagine will refuse to leave.

[kent_white]

8 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

London is one of the most vulnerable cities in the world from sea level rise. 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londoners-will-face-floods-droughts-and-blackouts-by-2050-caused-by-effects-of-climate-change-a3866391.html

To be fair I've never much liked the place anyway. The North will be full of Londonders though, apart from Millwall fans who I imagine will refuse to leave.

The sad thing is that that article is from 2018 and barely caused a ripple. Beggars belief really.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

LW, these companies will have to diversify and invest in alternatives sooner or later. Only way to stay in existence.

[Boby Brno]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

The sad thing is that that article is from 2018 and barely caused a ripple. Beggars belief really.

There seems to be experts on the whole spectrum of the issue. Some deniers, some predicting Armageddon. From what I have read, the vast majority of scientists take the view that we have a problem but with the will and cooperation of ALL major governments, we can avert the worst case scenarios. 

[kent_white]

1 minute ago, Boby Brno said:

There seems to be experts on the whole spectrum of the issue. Some deniers, some predicting Armageddon. From what I have read, the vast majority of scientists take the view that we have a problem but with the will and cooperation of ALL major governments, we can avert the worst case scenarios. 

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. If as a species we do everything we need to - and soon - then we can avoid very worst of it. We're miles away from that at the moment though. But hopefully it's gathering pace.

[miamiwhite]

Lisbon was hit by a tsunami on this very day in 1755......just saying.

[mickbrown]

Frackers told to frack off.

Edited November 2, 2019 by mickbrown

[freds dad]

7 hours ago, mickbrown said:

Frackers told to frack off.

Anyone would think that there was an election coming up.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 hours ago, freds dad said:

Anyone would think that there was an election coming up.

Oooh, below the belt.

Fwiw, the governing authority are the ones who stopped it. 

If Boris and his lot suddenly start claiming some moral superiority over it, I'll agree.

[London Wanderer]

14 hours ago, Boby Brno said:

There seems to be experts on the whole spectrum of the issue. Some deniers, some predicting Armageddon. From what I have read, the vast majority of scientists take the view that we have a problem but with the will and cooperation of ALL major governments, we can avert the worst case scenarios. 

Not sure that I have heard any scientists saying it is just a problem. You can't put deniers and Armageddon predictors in the same box. This isn't the Youtube tin foil hat brigade. It's the vast majority of the scientific community predicting catastrophic consequences if we stay on track to 4 degrees or even hit 2 degrees. They were right in their trend predictions from 30 years ago so I know who I am going to trust in this situation. 

Great to see fracking 'suspended' this morning. Shows what can been achieved when activists and local communities target industries directly rather than blocking bridges and public transport. 

Though I wonder if anyone on here were moaning about the 'jobless, workshy wankers' protesting outside the Manchester and Blackpool fracking sites. This is a well-time announcement by the Tories but we still owe our gratitude to the fracking protestors. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

As said elsewhere: it's been stopped by the governing authority because of the earth tremors. Not sure how much protesting has been involved in that; unless they all jumped up and down in unison. A lot.