Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They need that money to pay for their air conditioning bill which is going to rise something like 4x over the next thirty years.
If it helps, I don't think you should have children either.
Isn't that a fairly debunked stat from about 2018 as the 71% discounted all Co2 from farming and building activities etc and only counted co2 from extracted fossil fuels ... its probably an important enough issue to use real stats rather than spreading what is know to be misleading... not that I expect any better from her
that's one of the few left-wing framings i don't agree with. it is true that the profit from using fossil fuels goes to some companies.
but the actual utility of them goes to billions of people. if those companies ceased to exist, we would still need oil and gas and coal to power existing electricity plants, cars, planes.
the actual solution is much harder than dissolving or nationalising these companies.
e -
Last edited:
Surely, if the UK puts in a law to encourage people to buy electric cars wouldn't that just provide big issues with the power grid resulting in us needing yet more power infrastructure? No problem if it's renewable energy, but we'll cut corners like we always do.
The tweet above by zarah for example is just a politician trying to point the finger without actually understanding anything about it. She like all Politicians throw around buzz quotes and stats without actually contemplating the meaning of it. If you cripple those 100 companies, 300 will replace. Rather than attacking these companies you need them on your side and working closely with them. Pointing the finger and saying "it's their fault" helps nobody.
Nothing will change in the world until a large global disaster occurs, by then it might be too late. There's far too many people motivated by money and greed to be able to make the necessary radical global shift.
The tweet above by zarah for example is just a politician trying to point the finger without actually understanding anything about it. She like all Politicians throw around buzz quotes and stats without actually contemplating the meaning of it. If you cripple those 100 companies, 300 will replace. Rather than attacking these companies you need them on your side and working closely with them. Pointing the finger and saying "it's their fault" helps nobody.
Nothing will change in the world until a large global disaster occurs, by then it might be too late. There's far too many people motivated by money and greed to be able to make the necessary radical global shift.
I think the carrot (grants towards EV's) will be replaced by the stick (say 30% extra tax on a hybrid, 40% on a petrol and 50% on a diesel and stick up fuel duty by an obscene mount) - and yes your right if they are successful it will probably cripple currently electricity distribution networks ... given most people will probably want to charge their car at night renewables might be very difficult to achieve on a calm night time unless we see some major improvement in storage tech that rolls out quicker than the switch to EV's
On the topic of cars, I think the goal has to be to reduce the number of cars we need (as well as electrifying them and running them on renewable electricity). If you think about it, cars are these stupidly massive hunks of metal that are just sat on a driveway or parked clogging up streets 95% of the time. It's madness. We need a system of shared usage of a fleet of cars rather than individual ownership.
Imo we should have one big long car that stops near peoples homes and which everyone can use for free.
Ah if only such a thing was real.
The goal really should be more investment into active travel, it solves a multitude of problems not just the congestion element alone. Moving cars to electric is a quick fix, but it'll still have the same challenges in the long run.
Not really a feasible solution in a sparsely populated country like Ireland where people rely on their cars to get them to the nearest shop or post office a half hour away. In towns and cities though we just need really heavy investment into PT and congestion charges and carbon taxes that make owning a car essentially pointless.
That's been said a lot for the past decade (or I've seen it a lot, anyway), but the question remains how. The problem is that people go to different places to different locations, making carpooling complex; and carpooling to work anyway doesn't reduce people's needs to own cars. Long-term, I think the solution might rather lie in a combination of improved neighbourhood walkability, much better public transport, and community car sharing programs; but certainly here in North America they way suburbs have been built, we're a long way off that being a viable alternative.
Sure, but most people don't live in sparsely populated areas.
You’d have to basically rebuild most American cities, as their layout and zoning laws are designed around cars.
That's a very interesting channel - thanks for sharing. It makes a lot of strong points for the North American context, including references to past situations and how conscious choices have led us to today's situation - and how thus conscious choices can lead us into another direction as well. The Coventry video is good for that as well, especially the Amsterdam-Coventry example mentioned somewhere in the middle.
I am going to talk to my local councillor about this.
I have my doubts about my neighbourhood ever becoming truly walkable, but bikeable is definitely possible. For example: there is a grocery store located somewhat centrally, but it's a little far for most people. But by bike, it's within 5-10 min for everyone in my area, and if you have a cargo bike, you can do groceries properly as well. I also see the channel even has a video about biking in winter - which is the usual main counterargument (also mine ).Oulu is pretty far up north - if they can bike all year long, so can I. (Some people did in Helsinki as well, but I was worried some of the hills I had to go over might get too slippery...)
I lived even further north than Oulu and cycled all winter one year, so it's certainly doable. Some quite steep hills too, and I only slipped once (which I actually believe was on a flat bit). All you need are some decent winter tyres, and ice is no problem. The biggest problem is actually snow, but if you have decent snow shovelling infrastructure then that is less of a factor.
Surely the answer is self driving cars. Car ownership will become mostly obsolete in cities if that ever becomes a reality.
The narrator even says that studded tires are actually rare in Oulu.
Yes, let´s use the climate crisis as an excuse to get rid of democracy, shall we. Putin, Xi, Erdogan and Trump will love it.
The IPCC report on climate change is stark and real. There is and should be no doubt about the impending horrors facing humanity; our children and their children.
The only issue is whether the politicians have the balls to do what is absolutely necessary. And we can already see efforts by senior Tory officials - Steve Baker et al to undermine some of the government climate change committments by saying that the actions are going to affect the poorest.
And yet the poorest countries will be adversely affected the most.
This is time for absolute clarity of thought and clarity of actions. I do wonder whether the PM is strong enough and committed enough to drive through his green promises...
The only issue is whether the politicians have the balls to do what is absolutely necessary. And we can already see efforts by senior Tory officials - Steve Baker et al to undermine some of the government climate change committments by saying that the actions are going to affect the poorest.
And yet the poorest countries will be adversely affected the most.
This is time for absolute clarity of thought and clarity of actions. I do wonder whether the PM is strong enough and committed enough to drive through his green promises...
Who said anything about getting rid of democracy? Not her, that's for sure.
Uber would have helped. I was an Uber driver eons ago when it was just ride sharing. A few days a week I’d pick up a few strangers and drop them off on route to work. I got paid a small fee for helping someone. With zero cost or time impact to me.
In pretty short order Capitalism stepped in and they turned into the worlds biggest Taxi company. Instead of wealthy car owners transporting poorer car-less folks to work, we turned those poorer folks into second-job taxi drivers.
Free-market Capitalism fecks everything. Always.
What on earth are you on about?
She is talking about system change. Stop using fossil fuels is not system chance. Getting rid of the free marked (and hence one of the cornerstones in Western Liberalism) is.
I´m worried that in a time when Western Liberalism and Democracy are under attack both from outside and inside democratic countries - the climate change will fuel a new brand of attacks.
I'm afraid you're conflating a lot of stuff here. Liberalism, democracy, and capitalism are three separate things. You can curtail the free market yet still have free, democratic elections; you can completely curtail social freedoms (of speech, of marriage, etc.) and still have a capitalist economy; and so on.
Further, reigning in the free market is not the same as getting rid of it. There is already no completely 'free' market; wherever you will go in the world, there are all kinds of legislation that govern all aspects of economical activity - including in, say, the US or the UK.
In this case, then, what we would need is strong legislation around emissions and financial responsibility for its downstream consequences; and some kind of international action to set up strong legislation around emissions that ensures that international companies cannot dodge this through international bookkeeping (like what's being developed right now with minimum company tax levels). That would not affect democracy in any kind of way, and would not blow up capitalism in any kind of way. It would provide system change, however, both by making companies responsible for long-term consequences of their actions (right now companies pollute, and governments and individual citizens are on the hook for the long-term economic and health consequences), and by adopting international solidarity instead of pure competition (currently usually in the form of a race to the bottom on regulations and taxation).
I wish I was already old so I could live out my years without having to experience the coming disasters.
Best way to slow this down is by people having less kids.
Nope. That would take decades before it has global effect and wouldn't change anything in the meantime. it also wouldn't change behaviours and industry pollution, and would have to draconian to have the effect required, even in the long-term Action is required right now, and this will have to include changing how we do things.
Surely capitalism is curtailed in many ways, no one is disputing that. And surely you can have capitalism without democracy (China, Vietnam etc), but there are no examples of democracy without a free marked. Introducing new legislations is not what springs to my mind when I hear "system change" though. There are already plenty of people arguing that Democracy is not suited to deal with climate change, and that gives me the chill.
Last edited:
This is a myth that needs to die. People are already having less kids. Nearly the entirety of Europe is below replacement rate already, and all other industrialized or industrializing countries are following close behind. As poorer countries become less poor, with better access to contraception and education (for girls in particular), and lower child mortality rates, their birth rates are falling as well. China is projected to have a population of 1 billion in 2100, which is 400 million fewer than today. Some projections have them as low as 7-800 million. India will also have hundreds of millions fewer people.
The only challenge is if global warming makes it so that the poor countries can't ever become not poor, but then what's the population growth solution? Invade them and force them to have fewer children?
Besides, @Cheimoon is right, any change to population growth that happens right now would take decades to have any effect. And all the kids in Africa are either way going to grow up and want to have children of their own. That ship sailed when those kids were born and survived early childhood.
Not today there aren't. Historically there have been plenty of examples. And part of the reason why free market democracy is the only game in town now has to do with the cold war, and how it ended. Any country toying with not having capitalism during the cold war would quickly find itself on the American hit list, which would force them into the hands of the Soviet Union, not exactly a country which was going to foster democracy. And though the cold war is over, we're still firmly in the Age of America and the west, which has made capitalism a practical guarantee.
Besides, capitalism and free market are not synonyms.
Exactly right and I think the numbers put forward are the G20 countries contribute 80% of all emissions. The G20 are the countries with slower population growth rates.
I agree with the 1st line. The companies are meeting a real need.
I don't agree with the second. Just last month Exxon was caught lying to the public about their emissions targets, while lobbying privately to make things worse:
https://www.salon.com/2021/07/02/bo...to-water-down-us-climate-legislation_partner/
There is no reason to believe they will act in good faith.
We were warned quite a long time
Cool find. I wondered where this was from (New Zealand, it turns out) and found out that there is actually an article about the history of this clipping, as people questioned its authenticity:
We were warned quite a long time
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/
As they say there, the article is based on a similar article in an Australian newspaper from earlier that year (1912). This in turn was based on an article from the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, entitled “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists Predict for the Future”.
They then go into the history of climate change a bit, pointing out that the term 'greenhouse gases' was first used by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. For those interested, there's a somewhat fuller history of early climate change science here, from a first reference in 1856 to its solidification as a field of research in 1975 (in French):
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1813568/sciences-climatiques-histoire-rappel
What a time to be alive