https://www.theguardian.com/environm...droidApp_Other
Collapsing gulf stream. Hurrah!
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...droidApp_Other
Collapsing gulf stream. Hurrah!
How many taxes and lithium batteries will it take to fix that one?
I really, really would like some cool science and technology to come out of this.
All of them.Originally Posted by Giggles
It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse, he said. “So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible. The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere”.
White Christmases
Is this your normal wildfire season in Greece ATM?
I'm starting to think we might be in for a brutal bushfire season.
According to the news, it's been hotter and drier but also mixed in with fire fighter cuts in investment. Seems a solid choice.
Sounds pretty Greek.
I also saw Turkey on the news that isn't normal for them surely.
BBC News - Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58130705
Great.
@Pepe we need some real talk son.
We'll sort it out somehow. We always do.
We've been here for about 200,000 years, just over 0.1% of the time the dinosaurs were around for. We're a fly on an elephant's arse in the grand scheme of things.
I don't think we're going to do enough this time because there are enough people invested in the destruction of the planet for it to change.
It's not all doom and gloom though, it'll be our kids who will have to eat each other.
It won't change down here anytime soon.
And at some point there will be a tipping point at which those same interests shift towards the non-destruction of the planet. It might not be yet, but it'll happen.
We're already past a number of tipping points. The reaction will be too slow as it inconveniences our consumerist society.
We won't "sort it" until shit is sufficiently bad and it'll be too late then. There's no appetite to do so in the countries that could make a big difference. Especially the BRIC nations.
China have just discovered a brand new source of coal, they're building new Coal powerplants at something like one a month and they're planning to ramp that up.
Hang on, am I mis-remembering when I was making this exact point and you were disagreeing? If I'm not, welcome aboard.
If there is a solution to this it's one we're not currently employing. What we are currently employing is going to make nowhere near enough difference as none of us are prepared to sacrifice to the extent needed.
Easter Island is a brilliant example of what's happening to the overall planet now. They wanted shiny things so they chopped all of the tress down and made the place uninhabitable for humans.
Some people disagree that's how it went down, but if they're wrong then that's all you need to look at to know why we will never change this. Musk, Bezos, Gates etc. need to get together to work out how you put back or take away all of the shit we do need/don't need in the environment or else we're fucked. Governments won't sort it as they can never see past the current election cycle and regular humans (like you and me) won't as we're selfish fucks.
Problem for Musk, Bezos and Gates (et al) is the thing we don't need is them, so lol at the idea of them being the solution and the rest of us being too selfish.
Exactly what I was going to say. Tesla atleast has the illusion of being green I guess (it really isn't), but the Billionaires now fucking about in Space are doing so purely because we keep buying their largely unnecessary products.
Clean coal though innit (roflmaocopter)
I do think China has the political structure to do the type of transformation required (and they have set bold target recently despite also then building coal plants).
The biggest issue is for us to disconnect gdp with growth.
If the billionaires paid taxes, we could actually invest more into green technologies and retrofitting houses so they stop leaking heat.
edit: SwissRe's assessment:
https://www.swissre.com/media/news-r...nge-risks.html
World economy set to lose up to 18% GDP from climate change if no action taken, reveals Swiss Re Institute's stress-test analysis
Article information and share options
Published on:22 Apr 2021, Zurich
Share
New Climate Economics Index stress-tests how climate change will impact 48 countries, representing 90% of world economy, and ranks their overall climate resilience
Expected global GDP impact by 2050 under different scenarios compared to a world without climate change:
-18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2°C increase);
-14% if some mitigating actions are taken (2.6°C increase);
-11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase);
-4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2°C increase)
Economies in Asia would be hardest hit, with China at risk of losing nearly 24% of its GDP in a severe scenario, while the world’s biggest economy, the US, stands to lose close to 10%, and Europe almost 11%
Climate change poses the biggest long-term threat to the global economy. If no mitigating action is taken, global temperatures could rise by more than 3°C and the world economy could shrink by 18% in the next 30 years. But the impact can be lessened if decisive action is taken to meet the targets set in the Paris Agreement, Swiss Re Institute’s new Climate Economics Index shows. This will require more than what is pledged today; public and private sectors will play a crucial role in accelerating the transition to net zero.
Swiss Re Institute has conducted a stress test to examine how 48 economies would be impacted by the ongoing effects of climate change under four different temperature increase scenarios. As global warming makes the impact of weather-related natural disasters more severe, it can lead to substantial income and productivity losses over time. For example, rising sea levels result in loss of land that could have otherwise been used productively and heat stress can lead to crop failures. Emerging economies in equatorial regions would be most affected by rising temperatures.
Major economies could lose roughly 10% of GDP in 30 years
In a severe scenario of a 3.2°C temperature increase, China stands to lose almost one quarter of its GDP (24%) by mid-century. The US, Canada and the UK would all see around a 10% loss. Europe would suffer slightly more (11%), while economies such as Finland or Switzerland are less exposed (6%) than, for example, France or Greece (13%).
Thierry Léger, Group Chief Underwriting Officer and Chairman of Swiss Re Institute, said: “Climate risk affects every society, every company and every individual. By 2050, the world population will grow to almost 10 billion people, especially in regions most impacted by climate change. So, we must act now to mitigate the risks and to reach net-zero targets. Equally, as our recent biodiversity index shows, nature and ecosystem services provide huge economic benefits but are under intense threat. That’s why climate change and biodiversity loss are twin challenges that we need to tackle as a global community to maintain a healthy economy and a sustainable future.“
Climate Economics Index ranks countries’ resilience to climate change
Along with evaluating each country’s expected economic impact from climate risks, Swiss Re Institute also ranked each country on its vulnerability to extreme dry and wet weather conditions. In addition, it looked at the country’s capacity to cope with the effects of climate change. Put together, these findings generate a ranking of countries’ resilience to the impacts of climate change.
The ranking displays a similar view to the GDP impact analysis: Countries most negatively impacted are often the ones with fewest resources to adapt to and mitigate the effects of rising global temperatures. The most vulnerable countries in this context are Malaysia, Thailand, India, the Philippines and Indonesia. Advanced economies in the northern hemisphere are the least vulnerable, including the US, Canada, Switzerland and Germany.
Public and private sectors play a crucial role in accelerating climate action
Given the consequences highlighted in Swiss Re Institute’s analysis, the need for action is indisputable. Coordinated measures by the world’s largest carbon emitters are crucial to meet climate targets. The public and private sectors can facilitate and accelerate the transition, particularly regarding sustainable infrastructure investments that are vital to remain below a 2°C temperature increase. Given the long-term horizon of their liabilities and long-term capital to commit, institutional investors such as pension funds or insurance companies are also ideally positioned to play a strong role.
Jérôme Haegeli, Swiss Re’s Group Chief Economist, said: “Climate change is a systemic risk and can only be addressed globally. So far, too little is being done. Transparency and disclosure of embedded net-zero efforts by governments and the private sector alike are crucial. Only if public and private sectors pull together will the transition to a low-carbon economy be possible. Global cooperation to facilitate financial flows to vulnerable economies is essential. We have an opportunity to correct the course now and construct a world that will be greener, more sustainable and more resilient.
Our analysis shows the benefit of investing in a net-zero economy. For example, adding just 10% to the USD 6.3 trillion of annual global infrastructure investments would limit the average temperature increase to below 2°C. This is just a fraction of the loss in global GDP that we face if we don’t take appropriate action.“
Mitigating climate change requires a whole menu of measures. More carbon- pricing policies combined with incentives for nature-based and carbon-offsetting solutions are needed, as well as international convergence on taxonomy for green and sustainable investments. As part of financial reporting, institutions should regularly disclose how they plan to achieve the Paris Agreement and net-zero emission targets. Re/insurers also play a role in providing risk transfer capacity, risk knowledge and long-term investment, using their understanding of risk to help households, companies and societies mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Climate Economics Index: mid-of-century
The Climate Economics Index looks at which economies would be hardest hit, most exposed and best positioned to adapt to climate risk. It ranks countries based on: Expected economic impact from "chronic" climate risks linked to gradual temperature rises; the degree to which it is vulnerable to extreme weather events and severe hot/wet conditions; and a country's current adaptive capacity.
If you cunts stopped buying air fryers and city break flights we wouldn't need to rely on a small band of men to survive.
Yes, but get rid of them and someone else fills the void they leave and we're still in the same position. They are of course selfish too, but solving this problem would appeal to their God like complexes so they should really get on it.
NOTHING else is going to work. The fuzzy thinking around this really is outstanding. People are still fucking about thinking if we all do less of x and y we'll be able to do it. That won't happen and it's probably not enough anyway - we need a Bruce Willis drilling style nuclear solution here. Boffins, over to you.
And this is the sort of shit I'm talking about, long term it won't scratch the surface.
Essentially we need to stop having (so many) children and ban air travel and that's only a starter for 10 that no one is going to do, so the solution has to be elsewhere.
I'm sure the boffins are working on it.
Next time I bump into this chap I'll ask him how it's going.
The Drawdown Review has some suggestions which doesn't involve mental Bruce Willis type solutions. https://drawdown.org/sites/default/f...93Download.pdf
Buildings are a huge emission generator so yes it will scratch the surface (from that report ~6% of all emissions).
Any solution needs to be world wide in application and will be absolutely fucking horrific. Limited flight is the big one. No holidays (), eat local food, start fixing things instead of buying replacements, etc. I feel sick just thinking about it.
A one hundred and four page PDF document? Yep, regular Joes are going to buy into that. Please tell me they have a tldr somewhere?
And 'Forest Protection' is one of their solutions. I mean, sweet Jesus.
We need to reduce them by 60%. Sixty. It is not going to happen.
They had "building machines that 'suck up' Carbon Dioxide" as a potential solution on the news earlier. Building machines is the problem dickheads, it's not the solution.
You had it right with this Kik's. I can only assume you're alarmed because you've realised you inadvertently agree with me. Come here. It's ok now.
But we're not going to stop building other machines, let alone get rid of the existing ones, are we? In which case that sort of thinking sounds bob on to me. I know nothing of whether that actually works, I'm Yevrah etc. but that's the type of road we need to go down.
I might move to the hills and learn how to grow my own food in a few years time.
Actually, here's a question. I know nuclear power is BAD Mmmkay, but would that solve it? If so, what the dickens are we doing not going for that?
But that's what I mean. It's that thinking that got us in to this mess in the first place. We need to stop making shit.
It's obviously not going to happen, but it's what needs to happen if we actually want to solve this. Which I'm not sure we really do. Christ knows I still want to go on holiday.
It's funny, those survivalist types with their bunkers and practical skills are roundly mocked, but if any of them are still alive when the reckoning happens they'll be set for a while. I'd probably rather be dead personally, but if your lust for life is that strong, crack on.
It's not a one or nothing. There are a number of improvements needed, buildings are one of them.
Nuclear power is one way to reduce the need for fossil fuel energy but aren't quickly built and have longer term disposal issues. Page 26 in that report shows where they play a part.
The circular economy is building some momentum as well: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation...nomy-in-detail
It's the reuse that will allow for some consumerism to continue.
It's not though, is it. We were building machines to make our lives better and not to save our environment. If machines can do the latter then that's a different motivation and one we should absolutely go for.
So it's obviously not going to happen but we need to piss about wasting years or decades we don't have trying, rather than thinking of a completely different approach and solution? Madness.
The report is pointless, because if it needs 104 pages of different stuff (let's say 60 with the worthless pictures removed) to come together, across the globe, in the next few years, it's failed before it's even started. This needs a solution you can write in one sentence.*
*Building/making/doing the solution might be infinitely more complicated, but that's fine.
Maybe if you're dreadfully simple. The report is clearly not aimed at you.
No. I'm saying we're not going to solve the problem because we won't take the steps required. Instead, we're going to piss about building anti-C02 machines and Insulating lofts... while China builds Coal Powerplants.
It's all bollocks. It's the same as the Premier League players taking the knee. It achieves nothing but it allows the people in charge to pretend they're doing something.
The solution is to stop living the way we do currently and we won't do it.
People are dreadfully simple, and we need to get billions of those people to do things differently if we're going to get out of this using the current plan, with no immediate motivation to do so. That you or those behind the report are incapable of comprehending this is one of the reasons why we are truly fucked.
I completely agree with all of that apart from the bit I've bolded. If we won't do it (I agree we won't) then it isn't a solution and we need to find one.
The report is not aimed at Linda who works at Greggs. It's aimed at governmental agencies.
Who have all singularly failed to bring about anything like enough change to this point. You know the definition of madness, right?
There isn't a solution other than to stop doing it. It's like an Alcoholic trying to solve being an Alcoholic without giving up Alcohol.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote