Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to ask how many of you are seriously revising whether (or how often) you fly again?

677 replies

Thelowquietsea · 06/01/2020 20:25

We don't fly often (one flight a year tops, mostly to Europe) but reducing my air travel is one of the few differences I can make towards climate change.

And yet, I'm celebrating a big birthday this year. I had an idea to take myself to a retreat quite far away, and now it's 'booking' time, I can't quite bring myself to do it. Especially in light of Australia's tragedy. I'm really torn.

How many of you are making serious sacrifices in this area?

OP posts:
Thelowquietsea · 07/01/2020 19:02

@devereux1 - Instead of coming on here and aggressively asking us for facts to back up all posts you don't agree with, why don't you furnish evidence to prove your contrary position on everything? You might teach us something

OP posts:
Devereux1 · 07/01/2020 19:06

Thelowquietsea
@devereux1 - Instead of coming on here and aggressively

Aggressive now? Hmm

asking us for facts to back up all posts you don't agree with
I can't say if I agree or disagree since they are just statements with not shred of supporting evidence. I don't mean detail, I mean absolute basic facts. It's astonishing.

Don't you think if people claim everyone else should do something, everyone else is entitled to ask Why? Why is asking this question so threatening to you?

callmedavid · 07/01/2020 19:09

Deveraux would take a lot more than a few pages on mumsnet to go into the details of all the different simulations , measurements and studies, how the information from all of them is then evaluated to get an understanding of the possible impacts and their likelihood!

To some extent that is also not necessary. We know that virtually all studies have similar conclusions in terms of what must happen. Slash emissions fast. It doesn't matter if some people say half by 2025 and others say 3/4 by 2035.

Similarly It doesn't matter if some people say by 2100 that we will have near human extinction and others say 1 billion lives lost , both are unacceptable outcomes.

Almost all agree that we know what to do, and we know that the risk of not doing it is unacceptable. By the time we have bottomed out the precise details, almost all agree it would be too late. So since we know it's an unacceptable risk with a known solution, let's just get on with it!

But yes, there are people, who consider the more extreme scenarios more likely, and these people think that more extreme actions will be needed. I haven't looked at those. It's probably right that they are researched however.

Anyway, given your interest, Perhaps the best starting point for you would be the IPCC although it has been accused of tending towards more optimistic scenarios. A few years ago they didn't not include radiative forcing for example ( I hope that has been fixed now. )

the scientific literature in general is of course the best place study, but might be tricky if you aren't used to such research, I would focus on studies that look at bringing together the results from many studies,.meta studies I think you would call them. Google scholar allows you to search the scientific literature and many articles are freely available. The general scientific press, eg news scientist, often has accessible material, although that might be too dumbed down for your liking.

Devereux1 · 07/01/2020 19:13

callmedavid
Deveraux would take a lot more than a few pages on mumsnet to go into the details of all the different simulations , measurements and studies, how the information from all of them is then evaluated to get an understanding of the possible impacts and their likelihood!

That's fine, I'm not asking for any of that. Just give us two figures then behind what you have written and claimed:

  1. The probability for your claim of an uninhabitable earth within 50-100 years
  1. The probability of the second most likely outcome, and what that is.

Don't need any of the simulations. Just the % probability figures and source.

Thanks.

LEELULUMPKIN · 07/01/2020 19:16

No.

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 19:25

@deveraux there is a tonne of different types of reports explaining exactly the type of evidence that you are asking for. I'm finding it a bit disingenuous.

E.g. www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ which outlines various high confidence, medium confidence adn low confidence scenarios, written by these people: www.ipcc.ch/sr15/authors/ (86 Authors and Review Editors from 39 countries)
And this explainer from NASA: NASA has the following: climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter Reviews the SR15 report

climate scientists have very effectively predicted how temperatures will rise based on concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere: theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

probabilities are here: climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
In the absence of policies, global warming is expected to reach 4.1°C – 4.8°C above pre-industrial by the end of the century. The emissions that drive this warming are often called Baseline scenarios (‘Baselines’ in the above figure) and are taken from the IPCC AR5 Working Group III. Current policies presently in place around the world are projected to reduce baseline emissions and result in about 3.0°C1 warming above pre-industrial levels. The unconditional pledges and targets that governments have made, including NDCs2 as of December 2019, would limit warming to about 2.8°C3 above pre-industrial levels, or in probabilistic terms, likely (66% or greater chance) limit warming below 3.0°C.
globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
BETWEEN TWO AND THREE DEGREES OF WARMING

Up to this point, assuming that governments have planned carefully and farmers have converted to more appropriate crops, not too many people outside subtropical Africa need have starved. Beyond two degrees, however, preventing mass starvation will be as easy as halting the cycles of the moon. First millions, then billions, of people will face an increasingly tough battle to survive.

To find anything comparable we have to go back to the Pliocene – last epoch of the Tertiary period, 3m years ago. There were no continental glaciers in the northern hemisphere (trees grew in the Arctic), and sea levels were 25 metres higher than today’s. In this kind of heat, the death of the Amazon is as inevitable as the melting of Greenland. The paper spelling it out is the very one whose apocalyptic message so shocked in 2000. Scientists at the Hadley centre feared that earlier climate models, which showed global warming as a straightforward linear progression, were too simplistic in their assumption that land and the oceans would remain inert as their temperatures rose. Correctly as it would turn out, they predicted positive feedback.

Warmer seas absorb less carbon dioxide, leaving more to accumulate in the atmosphere and intensify global warming. On land, matters would be even worse. Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the soil, the half-rotted remains of dead vegetation. The generally accepted estimate is that the soil carbon reservoir contains some 1600 gigatonnes, more than double the entire carbon content of the atmosphere. As soil warms, bacteria accelerate the breakdown of this stored carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere.

The end of the world is nigh. A three-degree increase in global temperature – possible as early as 2050 – would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words, the Hadley team had discovered that carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming by the middle of this century – much earlier than anyone had expected.

Confirmation came from the land itself. Climate models are routinely tested against historical data. In this case, scientists checked 25 years’ worth of soil samples from 6,000 sites across the UK. The result was another black joke. As temperatures gradually rose the scientists found that huge amounts of carbon had been released naturally from the soils. They totted it all up and discovered – irony of ironies – that the 13m tonnes of carbon British soils were emitting annually was enough to wipe out all the country’s efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.” All soils will be affected by the rising heat, but none as badly as the Amazon’s. “Catastrophe” is almost too small a word for the loss of the rainforest. Its 7m square kilometres produce 10% of the world’s entire photosynthetic output from plants. Drought and heat will cripple it; fire will finish it off. In human terms, the effect on the planet will be like cutting off oxygen during an asthma attack.

In the US and Australia, people will curse the climate-denying governments of Bush and Howard. No matter what later administrations may do, it will not be enough to keep the mercury down. With new “super-hurricanes” growing from the warming sea, Houston could be destroyed by 2045, and Australia will be a death trap. “Farming and food production will tip into irreversible decline. Salt water will creep up the stricken rivers, poisoning ground water. Higher temperatures mean greater evaporation, further drying out vegetation and soils, and causing huge losses from reservoirs. In state capitals, heat every year is likely to kill between 8,000 and 15,000 mainly elderly people.

It is all too easy to visualise what will happen in Africa. In Central America, too, tens of millions will have little to put on their tables. Even a moderate drought there in 2001 meant hundreds of thousands had to rely on food aid. This won’t be an option when world supplies are stretched to breaking point (grain yields decline by 10% for every degree of heat above 30C, and at 40C they are zero). Nobody need look to the US, which will have problems of its own. As the mountains lose their snow, so cities and farms in the west will lose their water and dried-out forests and grasslands will perish at the first spark.

The Indian subcontinent meanwhile will be choking on dust. All of human history shows that, given the choice between starving in situ and moving, people move. In the latter part of the century tens of millions of Pakistani citizens may be facing this choice. Pakistan may find itself joining the growing list of failed states, as civil administration collapses and armed gangs seize what little food is left.

As the land burns, so the sea will go on rising. Even by the most optimistic calculation, 80% of Arctic sea ice by now will be gone, and the rest will soon follow. New York will flood; the catastrophe that struck eastern England in 1953 will become an unremarkable regular event; and the map of the Netherlands will be torn up by the North Sea. Everywhere, starving people will be on the move – from Central America into Mexico and the US, and from Africa into Europe, where resurgent fascist parties will win votes by promising to keep them out.

Chance of avoiding three degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches two degrees and triggers carbon-cycle feedbacks from soils and plants.

(This is the Hadley Centre) www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/modelling-systems/unified-model/climate-models/hadcm3

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 19:37

the link between increase in temperatures and increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not in doubt - what the probabilities are about are whether feedback loops caused by warming about 1.5 or 2 create massive increases in temperatures that we cannot plan for.

see here re. Australian bushfire predictions by the way: 7news.com.au/news/bushfires/australian-bushfires-garnaut-report-predicts-observable-increase-of-fire-intensity-by-2020-c-636017

Devereux1 · 07/01/2020 19:38

nearlyhellokitty
I ask you absolutely genuinely and sincerely: What is disingenuous about asking someone who tells us we should all be doing something, Why? For what outcome?

And what is disingenous about asking someone who has posted - for me I should add! - claiming the most likely outcome is that the earth will be uninhabitable within 50-100 years, about this probability and how it was reached?

nearlyhellokitty, Thelowquietsea, SoEverybodyDance - what questions are people allowed to ask, which you would approve of?

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 19:59

I have posted the evidence. You can see from that that there are many potential outcomes. With different probabilities depending on the types of policies we implement now, and whether we can prevent various feedback loops. The question you ask is not one that is easily answered in that format, and I said disingenuous because I assume you know that.

The point is if we do not act and temperatures reach 4 degrees, which is projected in a scenario without policies that reduce emissions. (see reference above) .

There will be uneven implications - some areas will remain habitable, possibly Antarctica, but large areas of where we live now will become uninhabitable. The massive extinction of species will accelerate. sea level rise already threatens 1/3 of the world's population by 2030
www.carbonbrief.org/what-is-a-4c-world / www.carbonbrief.org/category/science/people/human-security/
sealevel.climatecentral.org/

user1497207191 · 07/01/2020 20:04

Yes, I'm hoping for this along with reinstatement of some of the ferry routes between the UK and Northern Europe that used to exist.

Ferries/ships are heavily polluting - probably best to carry on flying rather than encouraging more diesel pumping boats!

Devereux1 · 07/01/2020 20:05

nearlyhellokitty
I have posted the evidence.

Yes, I will take a look at it. But before you did, you said you found my questions disingenuous.

I am asking you about your disingenuous accusation. And what questions would you permit other people to ask without making such a negative accusation about them?

Pub4Games456 · 07/01/2020 20:07

I read one of the biggest contributers on temperature, food production, air quality is caused by volcanoes emitting huge clouds of dust
A natural phenomenon

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 20:14

yup @pub4games456 - definitely the volcanoes causing air quality issues in London! :-)

FYI - it's not really true - www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

@Devereux1 I assumed that you realised that your question cannot be answered quite like you asked. perhaps you didn't, in which case, my apologies.

Devereux1 · 07/01/2020 20:21

nearlyhellokitty
@Devereux1 I assumed that you realised that your question cannot be answered quite like you asked.
No, I don't play games like that. I am sure you now agree my questions are most fair and basic. In terms of answered quite like you asked, if someone says Option A is most likely, Option B is second likely, it's a very fair question to ask what most likely looks like. 90% probability on our current trajectory? 20%? etc.

I would have thought everyone who claims the most likely outcome is that our earth will be uninhabitable within 50-100 years would be able to say how likely that is. That really is fundamental to the claim, you surely agree?

my apologies.
Thank you. Your apology is accepted.

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 20:29

@Devereux1 - the way it works is that if we get to 3 or 4 degrees, massive and catastrophic impacts are certain and rise with each rise in temperature.

The probability of us reaching those are quite difficult to measure - we know that Business as Usual takes us to 4. The question is whether we implement policies and how likely it is that those policies will reduce enough emissions. The promised policies have a 66% chance of keeping us under 3 degrees.

Therefore implementation of policies and new ambitious policies are critical.

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 20:31

(Not least because ideally we need to stay at 1.5 degree average)

Pub4Games456 · 07/01/2020 20:34

My parents never traveled abroad

However, they activity encouraged the next generation to travel, explore, go places

After the invention of the internet, travel increased dramatically & cheaper options became more widely available

It seems a little ironic, that only in a few generations. The thing that was actively encouraged is now being discouraged !

Thislittlepiggywentto · 07/01/2020 20:39

I like your stance OP. People saying that the governments have to change first are right of course, but that doesnt negate the fact that an individual can also make their own difference and a lot of individuals added together has an impact.

We should all make changes where we can, it's not just about the huge picture, but individual movements in the right direction, which can cause a wave, pressure on governments etc.

For reference, we haven't flown in 10 years. We are now looking at a holiday where we will, and then probably not go again for 10 years! We try small changes too though. No-one is perfect.

MarshaBradyo · 07/01/2020 20:41

Interesting posts helloKitty. Although worrying.

ludothedog · 07/01/2020 20:47

nearlyhellokitty thank you for your post. Very informative and very frightening.

I can't change the world but I can change myself. So, I fly now every second year and I live by the use, reuse and recycle mantra. I vote for those who believe in climate change and who will implement policies that will reduce emitions. I buy second hand where possible but need to work more on my car use, which is difficult as I need it for work.

Its scary how many people still refuse to acknowledge that climate change is real.

Pub4Games456 · 07/01/2020 20:48

If the policies are so critical

Why haven't all the countries in the world made a plan to take action ?

David Attenborough said people have been talking for years, but there has not been much action

79andnotout · 07/01/2020 21:01

Thanks for the business tips. We already do a lot of that (young company, I'm the oldest at 40 years), so no one uses any stationery! We try to do as much work via video calls instead of physically moving. Our clients are scientists so they are mostly also quite concerned about reducing their carbon footprint, so appreciate our stance. In my office we all cycle to work or get the train, and at least once a week my colleagues have vegan curries with me in the local Buddhist cafe. And for our company merch we only have high quality goods, no plastic tat, and only give them to people who ask for them. My last company was the absolute opposite so I have a lot of carry over guilt from those years of flying every week and over consumption.

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 21:10

@pub4games456 - well they have. it's called the Paris Agreement.
However, it's an interesting question as to why this doesn't mean policies have been implemented.and why some countries are trying to escape it.

it's basically what Greta Thunberg is saying. We know this is the future, we know we need to act, why aren't we?

you can already see some reasons for that in the answers to this post - i.e. people unconvinced. 'we're not as bad as them', concerns about impacts to my life now vs impacts long in the future (though they are finally hitting us visibly now - potentially another reason why concerns are growing).. some challenges are very tricky, need massive systemic change and a long term push.

plus this current political climate where facts are not valued as a part of policy making..

the good news is that coal is gradually becoming uneconomical and renewables are at cost parity with other forms of energy, so the solutions are also moving at a fast pace.

callmedavid · 07/01/2020 21:11

Damn lost my post

Firstly you should never ask for a probability without also asking to understand the distribution of the model outcomes . For example if all models output answers between 2 and 4 with a mean and modal value of 3 that is very different from a model with a mean of 3 and a modal value of 20. So this made me wonder about how much you understand about climate analysis?

The short of it was that any true prediction of what might happen isn't just the output from one model, it is based upon the amalgamation of outputs from many models, sub models, and from different groups of scientists. Combining these, weighting the studies according to how accurate and complete we think the studies are....i. I will suggest that the probability of any specific set of climate change effects will be very low. But I don't think it's a meaningful question

all models are wrong only some are useful

The probability that unchecked climate change will have a significant negative impact on humanity including loss of life of order millions to billions is pretty much 100%.

Some People are horrified enough at the small ( in global terms, not in terms of impact on the people involved ) number of deaths in Australia that they are prepared to take action. Actions that will help.

nearlyhellokitty · 07/01/2020 21:13

(also as @ludothedog says we need to vote for people that will change this - rather than those that promise us that we don't need to worry and can carry on as we were...)

Swipe left for the next trending thread