Is anyone else reading about climate change?

[TwigletsMakeMeViolent]

It's getting more and more worrying. Even if we stopped drilling today we're still in line for catastrophic climate change.

Monbiot today.

This follows a report last week from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography showing that carbon will never again drop below 400ppm.

Recycling and composting and taking fewer flights isn't going to help, really. Only our politicians can do this by drastic action. And that doesn't look likely.

Thoughts? And please, it would be great if this didn't descend into a climate change denial thread.

"I think people are tough on Millennials for one simple reason: they don't want to face the guilt attendant on being an earlier, more privileged generation who are leaving a pretty polluted legacy for others to clear up. They also want to believe that they only succeeded because they worked hard. Therefore, their ego drives them to say that young people are struggling not because of changing historical conditions but because they're just not a match for previous generations."

So agree with this.

Basically, we're never going to change unless we're forced to. By governments, or the collapse of capitalism, or by corporations (and none of those look likely).

China seems to be doing the most re: climate change right now. Hopefully they will drive the new technologies, making them cheaper and more viable for the rest of the world. They are actually ahead of their emissions targets. Shameful that the UK is still dithering on that one.

Haven't read the whole thread, but just wanted to post this interesting talk that Al Gore did for TED earlier this year. The first half is pretty scary, but the second half shows that some progress is, finally, being made.

One of the points he makes is that the main thing that prompts ordinary people to adopt more earth-friendly options isn't fear, it's cost. Its difficult for many people to imagine what a world that's 3 degrees hotter really means. It doesn't sound like a lot. Many of them will be dead by the time it happens. Maybe the area they live in can withstand that sort of of temp rise without any real penalties. People are selfish. If something doesn't directly affect them they'll stick with what the know and like. Anyway, here you go: www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_the_case_for_optimism_on_climate_change

Which can work (particularly for things like fuel bills) depending how much money people have...

The cost of flights doesn't prevent someone like Al Gore or Leonardo di Caprio taking lots of them or having a luxurious lifestyle - meaning certain sections of the public are less likely to listen to them because they don't practice enough of what they preach.

And then there all the items that cost more. Apparently decades ago, recycled paper loo roll and tissues used to be the cheapest option. Not so now. Never mind solar panel installation, home insulation or electric cars. Low income does mean lower impact in some ways because it also means lower consumption, but the way items are priced based only on current financial cost and without a nod to environmental impact (eg carbon tax, perhaps even lower VAT on environmentally sounder alternatives) means that's not everything.

You do see some reports that are more optimistic but I tend to agree with the James Hansen view, as here: www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/03/global-temperature-climate-change-highest-115000-years
Reading books and seeing how it all fits together makes it clearer why plenty of scientists see it that way. Bits and pieces are being done, but the reports about them don't mention other things that will still be going on, like what's happening in the oceans, or methane releases from Siberian melting and so on. The public and politicians don't really want to hear that sort of thing; most contemporary Western people aren't used to relative powerlessness in the face of changes in their surroundings; the underlying philosophies of positive thinking and abundance and that on some level it's foolish to assume life won't continue very similarly to the way it does now.

The reason you don't see a lot of threads on climate change & the environment on Mumsnet is that it is a reflection of reality. Sadly, the vast majority of people don't really think about it. If you asked them they probably take it seriously but don't consider it from day to day.
We are in the minority.
There is research which shows that after major events such as the flooding a couple of years ago, awareness spikes for a bit, but it's a short-term effect.
And that's why politicians don't take it more seriously - not enough votes in it.

That's true, I think grumpy (I feel wrong calling you that!)

We are stuck in a democratic catch 22. In many areas, we are moving towards a more engaged style of democracy, which ought to be a good thing. However, it means there is a leadership deficit: the politicians are taking their cues from the people (both in a self-interested way, for votes, and in a more principled way, for democracy); however, because of the way our culture has legitimated being a completely selfish, immoral individual, those people are not going to vote for things that inconvenience them personally, and are quite willing to blame the politicians when the time comes for not taking action.

I do think the judgement of history, on all of us, will be stinging. You could make the argument that what is happening right now is on a moral par with the way that Germans of the mid C20 turned a blind eye to the holocaust. Because make no mistake about it - people are already dying in their thousands. Just because someone isn't directly turning on the gas in the gas chamber doesn't make it any the less our fault.

shovetheholly, yes, though I see slavery (especially though not only US Southern slavery) as the main parallel because of its long duration as an institution and that it was also a means of producing goods. People are now frequently disgusted by attitudes in old books that seemed to accept slavery, or the marginally better conditions in the ensuing decades, as a given, and I suspect 20th century - current western consumption and industry in general will eventually be seen with similar censure. Not that those people are likely to have so much time for sitting around consuming our cultural products as we have for those of the 18th to earlier 20th century.

On the plus side the ozone layer is healing, we maybe headed for a marked decrease in solar output (this is cyclical), leading to global cooling. Oh and all the oil we used saved the whale.

If we really want to tackle it we need to cast a critical eye over the carbon footprint of the world's military industrial complex, but sadly militaries are exempt.

The impact of the ozone layer is unlikely to be large enough to affect global warming or cooling to any meaningful extent. See

www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.V_OdRygrI2w

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/are-the-ozone-hole-and-global-warming-related/

"I do think the judgement of history, on all of us, will be stinging. You could make the argument that what is happening right now is on a moral par with the way that Germans of the mid C20 turned a blind eye to the holocaust. Because make no mistake about it - people are already dying in their thousands. Just because someone isn't directly turning on the gas in the gas chamber doesn't make it any the less our fault."

I so agree with this. While climate change deniers are on the wrong side of history, the rest of us will still have to try and explain to our grandchildren why our generation took so little action. And as this thread keeps pointing out, we can only put so much blame on our politicians.

penny that article is in line with what I believe, too. And it's interesting how it talks about carbon capture, I find that so depressing. We've been so inactive on this issue that it's too late to actually do anything emissions related and we're relying on some as yet undeveloped technology that the next generation will have to develop. To clean up the shit we left.

This is interesting (and long), about how PR-friendly model scenarios with more optimistic results are sometimes still produced, assuming unrealistic amounts of emissions cuts in short periods of time: www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/truth-climate-change

I think the most crucial aspect of brexit is that we MUST retain some degree of economic and political unity to allow the international scientific continue to work together on this issue. that does to some extent defeat the point of Brexit, but really, this is so much more crucial than silly jingoism, and point scoring

:(

thanks for the thread

It is so strange how it has gone out of public consciousness compared to ten years ago

The article about the models is frightening. And goes to show how pointless this week's back-slapping about ratifying the Paris agreement is.

This blog is excellent but blunt. Though some very useful comments.

robertscribbler.com

I think the government will allow communities to perish, it's simply not economically viable to keep areas prone to flooding.

The only answer now, even if we all suddenly went carbon neutral tomorrow, is carbon capture. A project that has an estimated world wide cost of 34 trillion dollars. It's insane. What future do our children have?

I also read that the USA HORS have denied extra funding for army naval bases to protect themselves from rising sea levels.

NASA understands the urgency for immediate action. Governments simply go meh.

I read a report today that the sun is gearing up for a solar minimum, There have been four blank stretches of very little sunspot activity this year this will keep happening increasing from a few day a time to a few weeks, months, and will put us in a mini ice age in 2019 according to some experts. I remember reading back in the summer that this was normal and that the sun basically goes through a 12 year cycle and that we wouldn't have a mini ice age but today's reports are saying that this is lowest ever recorded activity on the sun in the previously studied 24 cycles and the last time there was this little activity we had the Maunder Minimum which lasted from 1645 til 1715. Would this rapid cooling of the earth have any affect on climate change? Does anyone know?

happy from what I've read, it won't have a significant effect.

Article here.

happy, it is all speculation anyway, solar minimums can't be predicted

What annoys me is all these experts where one side says one thing and the other side says the opposite! How are we to believe anything we are told if information is so contradictory?

nuclear fision is worked out and harnessed, that is what powers nuclear power stations.

nuclear fusion would release unimaginabe amounts of energy, but would never work alone. We would still need nuclear fision as the "fuse" to start it off, and would still have all the issues with nuclear fision.

I agree, though, nuclear energy is the future. Not because it is safe, or cheap, or manageable, or good for the environment, but because it is the only option.

Happy most scientists are agreed that urgent action is needed. Now! There is no room for compromise. I suggest you steer clear of the likes of James Delapole and Matt Ridley, who are journalists, not scientists.

I think it's going to be a very hard winter, which is unfortunate as it will give fodder to those who believe global warming is a hoax.

Indeed, James Delapole is a first class wankbadger.

The evidence isn't really contradictory at all. What is contradictory is what is being printed in the press. This means we all need to use Google to cross-check anything we are told, particularly if it's printed in a tabloid newspaper. Tiresome but necessary in a world where the media is owned by the rich and staffed by people in a north London bubble. Of course, there are some crazy websites out there also paid for by the oil lobby, so you have to cross-check the websites too.

This is a good piece on why a solar minimum is unlikely to have much of an impact on climate change: "The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming". www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21

It is a persistent myth that sun/sunspot activity is causing climate change. It isn't. The build up of gases released by human activity is the driver. This is also why fracking - which has the potential to release a lot more of those gases - may not be a great energy solution.

On nuclear fusion: I am tired of people arguing that there will be some wizard technology in future that will save the day. It's lazy and complacent. We can't rely on something hypothetical in future to solve a problem that is very, very much here right now. It's also unfair to expect future generations to carry that burden if the technology doesn't work. I find it bizarre that mums, of all people, make that argument!!