Climate Change

[SatanGreavsie]

"Carry on emitting and polluting" - sounds like a great sequel to Carry on Camping. Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw run into trouble when their coal-fired power station gets picketed by protesters led by Barbara Windsor. Hilarity ensues when her bra strap gets caught in one of the blades of Kenneth Williams' wind turbine. "That's the biggest emission I've seen in years" says Sid; "yak yak yak..."

Edited March 29, 2020 by SatanGreavsie

[Guest Nordkurve]

31 minutes ago, SatanGreavsie said:

"Carry on emitting and polluting" - sounds like a great sequel to Carry on Camping. Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw run into trouble when their coal-fired power station gets picketed by protesters led by Barbara Windsor. Hilarity ensues when her bra strap gets caught in one of the blades of Kenneth Williams' wind turbine. "That's the biggest emission I've seen in years" says Sid; "yak yak yak..."

Viz could make a great series of comic strips out of things like that.

[bolty58]

14 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Always listen to the voice in your head fella 😁

I hope you & your family are well under the circumstances.

 

Yes thanks - same at your end I trust?

Brevity. It's the future.

[London Wanderer]

10 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Yes thanks - same at your end I trust?

Brevity. It's the future.

We're getting by thanks. Brother's a frontline nurse and his mrs is heavily pregnant but they're both healthy and well. Hopefully now the testing has arrived that will help.

I'm working on my brevity- I thought I did okay in the last post? Give me a line limit when you next get involved  

Edited March 30, 2020 by London Wanderer

[London Wanderer]

23 hours ago, SatanGreavsie said:

"Carry on emitting and polluting" - sounds like a great sequel to Carry on Camping. Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw run into trouble when their coal-fired power station gets picketed by protesters led by Barbara Windsor. Hilarity ensues when her bra strap gets caught in one of the blades of Kenneth Williams' wind turbine. "That's the biggest emission I've seen in years" says Sid; "yak yak yak..."

This needs to made ! 

Sid and Bernard could have a 'keep calm and carry on polluting' mug. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by London Wanderer

[London Wanderer]

This post is about COVID19 and the links to the Climate Emergency - but doesn't feel appropriate to post on the main thread. 

If you're feeling ready to begin to process how this situation came about & how we can prevent it happening again- then watching The Next Pandemic on Netflix is a must. It's only 25 minutes long. Documentary was released in November (just before this all hapenned) and told us that the next global pandemic was a matter of when and not if. Scientists argue that the main drivers for new viruses are deforestation (which is pushing us dangerously closer to wild animals) and factory farming (which is pushing animals closer and closer together). It also shows that the way we travel and globalisation is a major driver in how it spreads.

The outbreak of SARS in 2003 killed 10% of those it infected and it was only pure luck that it wasn't a hardy enough virus to last and spread around the world. I don't say this lightly- especially to all those who have lost loved ones or are struggling to stay afloat- but the death rate of Coronovirus could have been much worse and who's the say the next one won't be. 

Surely the case for encroaching on tropical forests and intenstive animal agriculture has never been stronger. 

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/03/13/netflix-explained-the-next-pandemic-episode-season-2/

Edited April 11, 2020 by London Wanderer

[Spider]

Sting is a Bolton fan.

[Rudy]

35 minutes ago, Spider said:

Sting is a Bolton fan.

I’d rather have Goldberg

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

This post is about COVID19 and the links to the Climate Emergency - but doesn't feel appropriate to post on the main thread. 

If you're feeling ready to begin to process how this situation came about & how we can prevent it happening again- then watching The Next Pandemic on Netflix is a must. It's only 25 minutes long. Documentary was released in November (just before this all hapenned) and told us that the next global pandemic was a matter of when and not if. Scientists argue that the main drivers for new viruses are deforestation (which is pushing us dangerously closer to wild animals) and factory farming (which is pushing animals closer and closer together). It also shows that the way we travel and globalisation is a major driver in how it spreads.

The outbreak of SARS in 2003 killed 10% of those it infected and it was only pure luck that it wasn't a hardy enough virus to last and spread around the world. I don't say this lightly- especially to all those who have lost loved ones or are struggling to stay afloat- but the death rate of Coronovirus could have been much worse and who's the say the next one won't be. 

Surely the case for encroaching on tropical forests and intenstive animal agriculture has never been stronger. 

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/03/13/netflix-explained-the-next-pandemic-episode-season-2/

I posted a comment about horizon last night. It covered much of this.

We have to be a little careful I think, in that any creature lives close to others. Hence we always encroached to some extent on the wild environment by our very existence.

I think the main problem is not living in harmony with it, and in the end we become somewhat remote from it.

If we can manage to become a bit more sustainable locally and seasonally, and accept a level of reduced choice we might be getting somewhere.

 

[London Wanderer]

On 11/04/2020 at 19:38, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I posted a comment about horizon last night. It covered much of this.

We have to be a little careful I think, in that any creature lives close to others. Hence we always encroached to some extent on the wild environment by our very existence.

I think the main problem is not living in harmony with it, and in the end we become somewhat remote from it.

If we can manage to become a bit more sustainable locally and seasonally, and accept a level of reduced choice we might be getting somewhere.

 

Well said fella

[jayjayoghani]

Thought I'd post for some positive news at the moment

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/28/britain-breaks-record-for-coal-free-power-generation

Quote

Britain has gone without coal-fired power generation for its longest stretch since the Industrial Revolution, breaking the existing record of 18 consecutive days this morning.

The UK’s energy system has not used coal-fired plants for more than 438 hours, according to National Grid data, the longest uninterrupted period since 1882.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jayjayoghani said:

Thought I'd post for some positive news at the moment

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/28/britain-breaks-record-for-coal-free-power-generation

 

We aren't using much energy!!

[Zico]

3 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

We aren't using much energy!!

Not according to my electric bill

[Escobarp]

1 hour ago, ZicoKelly said:

Not according to my electric bill

That’s just keeping your beer cold 

[London Wanderer]

Forecasters predict emissions will fall 5 % this year.. short of the 7 plus scientists say we need to be achieving to give ourselves a fighting chance. The sad things is that they predict a huge rise when the economy boots again. Which raises alot of big questions about the industries we should & shouldn't be bailing. If there was ever an opportunity for a green & fair transition then it's now.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-co2-isnt-falling-more-during-a-global-lockdown/

Pretty stark warnings from the UN secretary today. 

https://www.newsweek.com/un-secretary-general-says-climate-change-devastation-will-many-times-greater-coronavirus-1499304?fbclid=IwAR1a7VPEfA09qbuBDv_iOH4ZQaQAVlJLa4RmkSqqLv95LQ03IBAW7cHU5u0

Hope I'm not shitting on the positive parade 😆

[bolty58]

6 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Hope I'm not shitting on the positive parade 😆

Give it a rest. It's what you lot live for.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to the answer, but a drop of 5% in emissions seems low. Considering vehicle and aircraft use has plummeted, and a lot of commercial activity has stopped I might have expected more of a reduction.

Perhaps there is an opportunity as we emerge from all this; perhaps companies can look to diversify into green technologies, but it will require assistance from both government and public.

[Sweep]

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

.

Perhaps there is an opportunity as we emerge from all this; perhaps companies can look to diversify into green technologies, but it will require assistance from both government and public.

They'll only do it if it's cheap, otherwise, back to coal and oil I'm afraid

I've seen a lot of posts, especially on FB, of people saying how things are really going to change once we come out of this, they'll stop buying products from China and they'll be more mindful of the environment etc  -  all nice ideas, but none of it will happen, we'll just all slip back into our old ways

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

They'll only do it if it's cheap, otherwise, back to coal and oil I'm afraid

I've seen a lot of posts, especially on FB, of people saying how things are really going to change once we come out of this, they'll stop buying products from China and they'll be more mindful of the environment etc  -  all nice ideas, but none of it will happen, we'll just all slip back into our old ways

I was more referring to manufacturing/engineering developing green technologies. Until these are more readily available and at reasonable prices, you're right, folk wont go with them.

We see a lot of research into ways of making bio fuels for example. Sea grass, algae etc.

Carbon capture going into building products.

Loads of stuff out there, just needs scaling up.

It may also need a nudge through legislation, like banning fueled cars. If energy is a tad more expensive via a green route, then put a carbon tax on fossil fuel created energy?

Must be ways, and as you say, perhaps people are currently a bit more open to change.

I tend to agree though, that it won't happen.

[Sweep]

13 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I was more referring to manufacturing/engineering developing green technologies. Until these are more readily available and at reasonable prices, you're right, folk wont go with them.

Loads of stuff out there, just needs scaling up.

It may also need a nudge through legislation, like banning fueled cars. If energy is a tad more expensive via a green route, then put a carbon tax on fossil fuel created energy?

 

Ideally as a global population we go for it, but whilst China and the US generally don't give a fuck, it's pretty much pissing in the wind - if those powerhouses had the will, then of course the cost would also come down, but as things stand neither of those nations look like changing their ways, sadly

[London Wanderer]

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Give it a rest. It's what you lot live for.

You love putting people in bubbles don't you fella? It's what you live for

Just to clarify- I ain't affiliated with any particular environmental movement. If you can't see the urgency of the challenge that we are facing, and the need to raise awareness then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. 

[London Wanderer]

TMJ's right- it's a surprisingly low drop. With 40% of the world on lockdown and the reduction in flights and traffic you would expect much more. 

Then again- transport makes up a little over 20% of global CO2 emissions. I think this article gives a good indication as to where the emissions are still coming from. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/why-did-carbon-emissions-decrease-during-coronavirus-990675/

Zico Kelly pretty much said it when he mentioned his energy bill is still going up. Much of our energy consumption has just switched from workplaces and public places to our houses. Which makes up a massive chunk of global CO2 emissions. Laptops, TVs- all that stuff- it uses a shit ton of fossil fuels. 

Agree with TMJ that the green solutions are there and need switching to asap. But many of those solutions are complex and also require use of fossil fuels. All this therefore needs to go hand in hand with a huge reduction in energy use and a serious debate about the implementation of carbon budgets. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by London Wanderer

[Sweep]

3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

 

Zico Kelly pretty much said it when he mentioned his energy bill is still going up. Much of our energy consumption has just switched from workplaces and public places to our houses. Which makes up a massive chunk of global CO2 emissions. Laptops, TVs- all that stuff- it uses a shit ton of fossil fuels. 
 

I had this discussion earlier with a work colleague - our office building has "smart lighting" and all that sort of shit, so it's very energy efficient. Now that we're all working from home, we've all got a laptop on the go, a printer plugged in (in the office everybody shares 2 or 3) plus we've all got TVs and Radios on etc  -  so in reality, I reckon that folk WFH has more of an energy impact than having people in the office

[London Wanderer]

39 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I had this discussion earlier with a work colleague - our office building has "smart lighting" and all that sort of shit, so it's very energy efficient. Now that we're all working from home, we've all got a laptop on the go, a printer plugged in (in the office everybody shares 2 or 3) plus we've all got TVs and Radios on etc  -  so in reality, I reckon that folk WFH has more of an energy impact than having people in the office

I agree mate and I think the evidence shows you're right or we would have seen more of a drop. Just highlights how much we need govn. investment in housing. Many folk in old and poorly insulated homes will now have the heating on more that they would if they were working in an energy efficient office. Obviously it all depends on the workplace though. 

The govn. advisory group on climate change have pretty much said our homes aren't fit for purpose when it comes to meeting targets. And with us all in our homes more the impact will be much higher. https://www.theccc.org.uk/2019/02/21/uk-homes-unfit-for-the-challenges-of-climate-change-ccc-says/

On a separate note- good to see marine wildlife doing better and pollution levels have plummeted. Hope that inspires councils to take more action when we reboot the economy.

Edited April 29, 2020 by London Wanderer

[Big E]

37 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I had this discussion earlier with a work colleague - our office building has "smart lighting" and all that sort of shit, so it's very energy efficient. Now that we're all working from home, we've all got a laptop on the go, a printer plugged in (in the office everybody shares 2 or 3) plus we've all got TVs and Radios on etc  -  so in reality, I reckon that folk WFH has more of an energy impact than having people in the office

You are almost as big a dullard as Dazbob arent ya