Britain exceeds Kyoto target of 12.5% reduction in carbon emisssions since 1990
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,339
- Location
- Norwich
100% with you on number 1. Currently working with some figures relating to 2030's likely energy mix, and the source of it. Quite scary really, I honestly don't know how we will secure our energy source (at a certain cost!) and fill the energy gap.
You are also correct about industry moving, we virtually have no heavy industry left in England. And I Know it won't show yet in the figures, but the recession will have lowered our Co2 emissions by loads.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Marine life will be fine up to about 1000ppm of CO2. Currently it's less than 400ppm. Look it up if you want to but much of the panic is for naught, since it was my original concern.
What will happen is:
The climate will change.
The day after that it will also change.
Infact, I'm going to put everything I own on the fact that the climate never stays the same.
I'm going to bet the entire universe on the fact that the climate on Earth is relatively stable, but has never once, in it's 4 billion year history, ever 'stayed the same' from one day to the next.
If you think we're the cause of it changing then you're very naive. Tomorrow a volcano could go off and offset everything the human race has ever done. At which point I'll gloat for a bit before freezing to death under the cloud of ash.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
We'll probably have some arse of an ice age next century and all the global warming brigade will be modifying their theories as to how it fits in with the fact that everyone's willies are falling off.
Shame our figures don't include international aviation flights which depart from here, which incidentally happen to be a huge emitter and no-one takes responsibility for them! It's amazing how governments can conveniently forget these emissions exist for auditing purposes, but they are still there nonetheless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Great but it's an arbitrary target and entirely meaningless. Why is CO2 the enemy? Does nobody (apart from non Government scientists and Johnny Ball) understand the carbon cycle?
Perhaps if we focused on reducing waste including packaging and pollution rather than getting hung up on CO2 we may get somewhere.
Exactly - almost. It's more worrying the amount of waste and pollution that places like India and China are producing rather than the CO2 they make. However your analogy is very valid.
[TW]Fox;15877785 said:
Welcome to spineless Britain. We could use this to strengthen our economy in many ways. Instead we get that one eyed idiot Brown and his cronies.
This country needs somebody with balls in charge and that ain't any of the parties.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,339
- Location
- Norwich
If I'm understanding your question, you are asking that if it is inevitable, what can we do anyway?
I think the problem, as I see it, is that if people believe it is not anthropogenic, then there will be a much smaller emphasis on trying to research what the effects may be, and how best to cope with them. Kind of "disassociated responsibility", i.e if I didn't spill that glass of water, why should I clear it up?
The media just run away with the hype, and the tabloid reading public become disillusioned with CC, and forget it. Anyone trying to make it an issue become hippies believing in cons, or politicians trying to steal more tax money from you.
I think it can be done, but it needs a proper government who is willing to say **** you to green peace and stupid normal people who want to keep there nice countryside unaltered.
Things like Severn barrage and 4th generation nuclear power plants. We should be looking at getting are, one time great nuclear research back to the best in the world and planning 4th generation plants to start being built within 20 years. say 15 years of research. 4th generation already has several plants around the world.
As well as a look at all other areas. local power production, insulation, energy efficiency. with so many items now reaching A grade efficiency. It's time to introduce a new higher level. Maybe A1-10
All the theories say it will change anyway just slower just like it has in the past.
So why not spend all the money on building defences/adapting?
If you can't stop the glass being spilled best you can do is put a towel over the table.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,339
- Location
- Norwich
Just went for a quick read up on Gen IV reactors, haven't looked at them all that much and assumed they also included fusion. Some interesting stuff. Even the EPR's would do us a decent job, but I'm not sure if you get more NIMBY with nuclear or wind farms these days
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,339
- Location
- Norwich
That's my point exactly
But it gets totally hidden, and also bears the sad fact that the first, and likely the worst effected, will be the worlds poorest. Thus lessening people's interest even more.That's my point exactly
So why reduce co2 or anything else?
we should be massively stepping up production so we can meet the construction demands and funnelling money into researching where in the country we will face problems and how to defend/evacuate/adapt that area.
Depends if we've actually reduced emissions or just shifted them all to the poor far eastern countries that we subsequently import all our products back from but magically without the carbon output being attributed to the UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
I don't really agree that global warming is man made so I don't really care too much.
However I also don't see what some lines on map have to do with anything, per person we make a lot of co2. per person China doesn't.
If anyone should be cutting co2 it is Europe and the USA.
Yes they might use coal for their power but when you hardly use any it doesn't really matter.
It is pretty obvious that a bigger country will make more co2.
However I also don't see what some lines on map have to do with anything, per person we make a lot of co2. per person China doesn't.
If anyone should be cutting co2 it is Europe and the USA.
Yes they might use coal for their power but when you hardly use any it doesn't really matter.
It is pretty obvious that a bigger country will make more co2.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,339
- Location
- Norwich
Reducing Co2 will be a by-product of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, which I think is more important than emission reductions alone.
Because those lines define who governs that little patch on the map.
Per capita china may produce fairly little, but it's the 100 or so people at the top that decide (to a degree) how much they release.
Because it makes no darn difference tonnage per person. It is the total tonnage released and that is countries like china. Not us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
Still, it is a bit rich to tell a chinaman to use less resources when he has very little and we could go on 1 less longhaul holiday a year.
Yes it is complicated because of the dodgy distribution of wealth over there but it is still a mean average so the few high polluters are taken into acount.
it is down to their population really.
But say if Chinas provinces were ruled seperetly like the countries of Europe, it wouldn't change anything would it? unless all the rich people live in one place?
It just seems like they arn't allowed to make much co2 because they have so many people, the country is big enough to warrent it, perhaps km2 should be part of the calculation. te more of the earth you oen the more co2 you can make.
Last edited: