World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

[balky12]

So basically you are looking forward to technological progress with renewable energy generation but you do not want to pay for it. That's how the above reads.

Not that case but I can see where you got that impression.

I studied physics at A-Level, enjoyed it, but yes, some of it was beyond me. If I had the brain power to go further this would be an area that I would love to have researched / worked in. It's pivitol and I don't mind paying for it, just less of the hysteria and everday forcefeeding about how every time I get in my car I kill the planet, or how if I spread fertalizer around my garden I'm killing the planet.

We don't have any real viable alternatives yet. The alternatives that are in progress still heavily really on burning fossil fuels. We will get there one day, let's just not beat each other up in the mean time.

 

[Westyfield2]

Somehow I don't think his classic car is the main cause of climate change, or even a big part of it...alarmist nonsense. What his point states is that people in power ignore the real polluters such as the huge chemical factories, mining operations, new coal burning power stations, air travel, deforestation, intensive unsustainable farming and so on, instead focusing on the private individual and his classic car he probably drives once a week...and which has little discernable impact compared to corporate and industrial polluters.

And we are not really talking about the destruction of life on Earth and you know it, and if you don't then I feel sorry for you. Betting on the a Entire Earth just so he can drive a classic car...haha!!! The mind does boggle, just not how you think it does!

By owning that classic car he is probably more green than the person who buys a newer more fuel efficient car every three years anyway.

This times a million!

But will the governments listen? Nope!

 

[RedvGreen]

So basically you are looking forward to technological progress with renewable energy generation but you do not want to pay for it. That's how the above reads.

I fail to see how the Government reaping more fuel and road tax (and Showroom tax) is benefiting the situation?

If the Government were formulating genius-think tanks and meeting with the greatest minds in the world, you'd pretty much guarantee they would make sure the press and media would be ALL OVER IT. Especially with wavering support in the main political parties.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I for one can't wait till we all melt

 

[D.P.]

I gave up giving a damn about the environment a while ago, they'll bitch and bitch and bitch because I drive a classic car which dumps gobs of fuel into the engine through a carburettor and doesn't have a catalytic converter.

But that big old factory in china releasing toxic chemicals "No, no, we don't need emissions regulations there"

I believe man is having a dramatic effect on the planet - whether you believe in climate change or not is irrelevant because pollution is indisputable, as is for example landfill running out - for that reason I don't mind recycling and being less wasteful (and quite aside from that I believe modern society to be very wasteful indeed).

But I figure why the hell should I be the target or many an eco tax and campaign?

In the words of Sean Lock "It's like showing up to an earthquake with a dustpan and brush"

If everyone feels that way then we are all in big trouble. Just because you individually create less pollution than a factory doesn't mean that a thousand people don't create significant comparable pollution.

Don't underestimate how small changes can add up to large effects when applied to hundreds of millions of people who are the greatest polluters of the world. Europeans and Americans. On tribute on so much pollution per a capita that even a few percent reduction adds up to big reductions globally. With the recent US recession the US CO output actually fell quite a lot because people were driving less. Increase g average mpg of all the cars on the road in Europe adds up to huge CO2 reductions over a course of a year.

And don't under estimate how seriously China takes pollution and AGW. They fully realize the problems and are taking large steps to reduce and control pollution.

 

[D.P.]

Somehow I don't think his classic car is the main cause of climate change, or even a big part of it...alarmist nonsense. What his point states is that people in power ignore the real polluters such as the huge chemical factories, mining operations, new coal burning power stations, air travel, deforestation, intensive unsustainable farming and so on, instead focusing on the private individual and his classic car he probably drives once a week...and which has little discernable impact compared to corporate and industrial polluters.

And we are not really talking about the destruction of life on Earth and you know it, and if you don't then I feel sorry for you. Betting on the a Entire Earth just so he can drive a classic car...haha!!! The mind does boggle, just not how you think it does!

By owning that classic car he is probably more green than the person who buys a newer more fuel efficient car every three years anyway.

That is completely false thinking.

25%-35% of European and American CO2 output is directly from transportation, and 90% of that is from personal driving. The output from factories is also around 15%. It is more important to reduce the co2 output from driving as it is with factories!

Have a look at the facts https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...RraKVzs2xkn0Kd1OA&sig2=5O6VWl5h2l8AjbVXkFJyJg

 

[joeyjojo]

Somehow I don't think his classic car is the main cause of climate change, or even a big part of it...alarmist nonsense.

See D.P.'s post above. If everybody acted as entitled as this individual then we'd be completely screwed. You're quite right that the things you've listed need to be addressed (power generation and so on), but getting individuals to sort their behaviour out remains a huge challenge.

And we are not really talking about the destruction of life on Earth and you know it, and if you don't then I feel sorry for you. Betting on the a Entire Earth just so he can drive a classic car...haha!!

As I wrote above, it's certainly not impossible that humans could perturb the climate drastically, even to the point of making the planet uninhabitable. Thankfully this is an unlikely outcome (how unlikely, who knows?).

What we do know is that the impacts of climate change are already being felt, and they will get worse the longer we delay action. This is why I find it so hard to comprehend pitchfork's post. Most of the time, if you tell people they're doing something that is going to effect them somewhat negatively now, or quite significantly if they continue, they do try to stop it (e.g. smoking, drinking, sloth).

Perhaps the problem just seems too massive for people to get their heads around. Or it's just the old fallacy in pitchfork's post of "It's not me! What difference can I make?". The answer is - all the difference! If everybody took personal responsibility I dare say we'd be much better off. The hard truth is that probably means: rarely driving, never flying, eating local food and almost no meat, and so on. It's a hard pill to swallow.

And I'll be the first to say I don't tick all these boxes! Although I've gone a long way further than pitchfork (I don't drive or eat meat for precisely these reasons).

Edit: this kind of "how many Earths would it take" calculator comes to mind...

 

[badcompany]

man made climate change is a fallacy (notice how they had to stop calling it Global Warming)
Climates change all the time from the beginning of time to think we play any significant role in it is hugely egoistical. But lets pretend we do and will change the climate and we all die in 1000 years would the planet recover as it has done umpteen times before after cataclysmic encounters with comets, super volcanoes, ice ages? Why yes it will and you could argue that the planet would infinitely better off without the virus that is mankind.
So if you really are one of these tree-huggers who love the planet the best thing for you to do is to ignore all the BS and just get on with life.

 

[Castiel]

That is completely false thinking.

25%-35% of European and American CO2 output is directly from transportation, and 90% of that is from personal driving. The output from factories is also around 15%. It is more important to reduce the co2 output from driving as it is with factories!

Industrial Output accounts for more than half the CO2 (and even more of the other major pollutants) in the US, add to this that transport is made up of various element, the major contributors being commercial transport and you will see that someone owning a classic car is pretty low down on the list of people we should be asking to give up their transport, particularly as a classic car will be more green over it lifetime as long as it is in use as the environmental costs associated with building a car etc outweigh its ownership by a large margin.

Now to your figures:

EPA (IPCC 2007) figures show that Global Greenhouse Gas emissions by source are as thus in ascending order:

Energy Supply: 26%
Industry: 19%
Forestry: 17%
Agriculture: 14%
Transport: 13%
Residential and Commercial Buildings: 8%
Waste and Waste-water: 3%

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

So I would question that asking someone to give up their classic car is really necessary when their are far more important areas that need far greater attention.

Having read through your claims, I find that they are not supported by the data..to begin with you have just give the US dataset, which differs from the Global and EU datasets..also there is no mention of the 90% personal domestic driving figures you gave, I think you are confusing them with the 90% figure given for the fuel type and Industrial Output is far in excess of the 15% figure you quote (I think you are looking at the CO2 Fossil Fuel figures only), which isn't in that data, it actually gives the figure at 20% not including power generation which would increase that to 52% (and that is for the United States, globally the figures are somewhat different as illustrated above from the same source data).

National US GHG figures:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

In the 2012 Summary (same EPA source material) Power Plants (industrial) accounted for 40% of the US carbon pollution and 67% of direct reported emissions, far exceeding emissions from private car owners and significantly more than those who own Classic Cars.

See D.P.'s post above. If everybody acted as entitled as this individual then we'd be completely screwed.

Well DP's figures are pretty off..but that aside, I am afraid that someone owning a Classic Car is NOT entitled and is NOT the main source of Global Climate Change. In fact as the owner of a Classic Car he is probably more green than the owner of a Prius or the person who buys a new fuel efficient car every five years due to the innate environmental costs involved in car production and disposal.

As for hard truth: well that is simple...There are simply too many people, and that is what needs addressing..nothing more.

 

[glenimp617]

How did people get so blasé about climate change? We're talking about the fate of every living thing on Earth, the only place in the universe that we know life exists, and you "gave up a while ago"?

Mind boggling.

why should I recycle my cornflakes box when the Indian government dumps tons of non recyclables into the river everyday? My local council empties the bins once every two weeks rather than once a week. You know where my rubbish goes now, and it sure ain't on the driveway!

you really think my cornflakes box is going to save the planet?

How about sorting out the big problems first, then worry about little me later on

also, answer me this.....how many countries have a green tax? yeah, I'll carry on living my life the way I want thanks

 

[D.P.]

Industrial Output accounts for more than half the CO2 (and even more of the other major pollutants) in the US, add to this that transport is made up of various element, the major contributors being commercial transport and you will see that someone owning a classic car is pretty low down on the list of people we should be asking to give up their transport, particularly as a classic car will be more green over it lifetime as long as it is in use as the environmental costs associated with building a car etc outweigh its ownership by a large margin.

Now to your figures:

EPA (IPCC 2007) figures show that Global Greenhouse Gas emissions by source are as thus in ascending order:

Energy Supply: 26%
Industry: 19%
Forestry: 17%
Agriculture: 14%
Transport: 13%
Residential and Commercial Buildings: 8%
Waste and Waste-water: 3%

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

So I would question that asking someone to give up their classic car is really necessary when their are far more important areas that need far greater attention.

Having read through your claims, I find that they are not supported by the data..to begin with you have just give the US dataset, which differs from the Global and EU datasets..also there is no mention of the 90% personal domestic driving figures you gave, I think you are confusing them with the 90% figure given for the fuel type and Industrial Output is far in excess of the 15% figure you quote (I think you are looking at the CO2 Fossil Fuel figures only), which isn't in that data, it actually gives the figure at 20% not including power generation which would increase that to 52% (and that is for the United States, globally the figures are somewhat different as illustrated above from the same source data).

National US GHG figures:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

In the 2012 Summary (same EPA source material) Power Plants (industrial) accounted for 40% of the US carbon pollution and 67% of direct reported emissions, far exceeding emissions from private car owners and significantly more than those who own Classic Cars.




Well DP's figures are pretty off..but that aside, I am afraid that someone owning a Classic Car is NOT entitled and is NOT the main source of Global Climate Change. In fact as the owner of a Classic Car he is probably more green than the owner of a Prius or the person who buys a new fuel efficient car every five years due to the innate environmental costs involved in car production and disposal.

As for hard truth: well that is simple...There are simply too many people, and that is what needs addressing..nothing more.

You are looking at Global emissions, not European or US emissions. Most of the global don't own a car, most Europeans and Americans do own a care. In Europe and the US, twice as much CO2 is produced by people driving cars than by industry. That is a plain fact you cannot wiggle out of.

The Global percentages are meaningless, what ever someone does in the UK that doesn't stop what another country does. For the UK to reduce CO2 emissions then reducing emissions form transportation is paramount!


EDIT:
UK figures can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...enhouse_Gas_Emissions_Provisional_Figures.pdf

I had a different PDF this morning from UK GOV that stated that 90% of the CO2 emissions from transportation come form public driving.

EDIT 2:
Lots of info here, the 90% is for all road transportation
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/energy-and-environment/climatechangefactsheets.pdf

You seem to be forgetting that most of the world don't drive cars, a luxury reserved for the west. For the west to reduce CO2 emissions then cutting transportation pollution is critical. For other developing countries is is important that their u=industry and power generation is developed to reduce GHG emissions. Don't mix up global emissions with local - what ever Joe Blogs does in the uK does not affect a different countries pollution, what the UK has to do is different to other countries. Just like some countires that have very little GHG emmision form power due to higher geothermal/hydro/nuclear/wind production don't have to focus so much on power.

 

[StriderX]

The climate changing is not the issue.

Its people.

The slightest drop in "lifestyle" and it all collapses.

 

[StriderX]

The climate changing is not the issue.

Its people.

The slightest drop in "lifestyle" and it all collapses, where do you think all those displaced individuals go? They certainly dont just disappear, we care too much, until they are at our doorstep, at which point less than wonderful ideologies arise and we come full circle.

 

[joeyjojo]

Well DP's figures are pretty off..but that aside, I am afraid that someone owning a Classic Car is NOT entitled and is NOT the main source of Global Climate Change. In fact as the owner of a Classic Car he is probably more green than the owner of a Prius or the person who buys a new fuel efficient car every five years due to the innate environmental costs involved in car production and disposal.

As for hard truth: well that is simple...There are simply too many people, and that is what needs addressing..nothing more.

To be clear, by "entitled" I meant the post smacked of "entitlement" (like glen8's below) - this attitude of "I want x so I'll have it, the environment be damned". Everybody does this (or aspires to do this) to varying degrees, because in the main, living a comfortable life is resource-intensive. Look at how cushy our lives our now than in any time in humanity's history. But the longer it goes on without significant reduction in fossil fuel use and/or environmental protection measures (across all sectors) the bigger the "credit card bill" to pay off in the coming centuries. There's no way around it.

As for the last line above - true, for a given (western) standard of living. So if reducing the population is the only solution, how would you go about it? Or would you encourage people to live however they like and let things unfold as they will? It's bound to be disastrous, and impact most on those who didn't have much part in it (the third world and nature).

man made climate change is a fallacy (notice how they had to stop calling it Global Warming)
Climates change all the time from the beginning of time to think we play any significant role in it is hugely egoistical. But lets pretend we do and will change the climate and we all die in 1000 years would the planet recover as it has done umpteen times before after cataclysmic encounters with comets, super volcanoes, ice ages? Why yes it will and you could argue that the planet would infinitely better off without the virus that is mankind.
So if you really are one of these tree-huggers who love the planet the best thing for you to do is to ignore all the BS and just get on with life.

You're mostly wrong. "Climate change" is just a better way to describe what's happening since some places will get colder (on average or transiently) as the average temperature (of the atmosphere and oceans) increases. When it was called "global warming" people said "what global warming?!" every time they experienced a cold snap.

Humans are presently the dominant forcing of climate change, with very high confidence (>95%). As you say, the climate has changed, but it's currently changing mostly due to humanity.

I don't get this post though. Do you really care so little for humanity and for life on Earth?

why should I recycle my cornflakes box when the Indian government dumps tons of non recyclables into the river everyday?
you really think my cornflakes box is going to save the planet?
How about sorting out the big problems first, then worry about little me later on

Every small action has a positive impact. Not doing something as trivial as recycling a cornflakes box is just laziness. The big problems are being tackled, some quickly, some slowly. E.g. China has been slated in this thread but it's second in the world in renewable power generation after Germany.

It's up to every individual to do the little things. If you think recycling a cereal packet is not worth doing look at some of these facts from the USA. The USA gets through about 160,000 tons of cardboard each year from cereal boxes, consuming the amount of energy that would power 26,000 homes. It takes a few seconds per person for a big reduction in waste, energy consumption, and the number of trees you have to chop down.

 

[AGD]

why should I recycle my cornflakes box when the Indian government dumps tons of non recyclables into the river everyday? My local council empties the bins once every two weeks rather than once a week. You know where my rubbish goes now, and it sure ain't on the driveway!

you really think my cornflakes box is going to save the planet?

How about sorting out the big problems first, then worry about little me later on

also, answer me this.....how many countries have a green tax? yeah, I'll carry on living my life the way I want thanks

You have a terrible attitude. How about doing something because it is the right thing to do? What about lead by example?

It really isn't difficult to separate out your recycling.

 

[Rroff]

I don't get this post though. Do you really care so little for humanity and for life on Earth?

They'll only give a **** when it actually impacts their life then they will bitch about how no one has done anything about it.

Truth is much of the human race is one step removed from primate and don't understand or sometimes not even aware of the bigger picture.

 

[D.P.]

why should I recycle my cornflakes box when the Indian government dumps tons of non recyclables into the river everyday? My local council empties the bins once every two weeks rather than once a week. You know where my rubbish goes now, and it sure ain't on the driveway!

you really think my cornflakes box is going to save the planet?

How about sorting out the big problems first, then worry about little me later on

also, answer me this.....how many countries have a green tax? yeah, I'll carry on living my life the way I want thanks

That is such a terrible attitude. The world has to work together to reduce pollution and consumption of resources. Why Should India recycle if you (and everyone else) are going to dump your are cereal box (and everything else)?

The UK has to do their part, France theirs, China theirs, etc. and together significant reductions can be made. The develop countries have a moral obligation to not only reduce their pollution and consumption but to help developing counties reduce their pollution (e.g., assisting in provider technology for cleaner power stations, hydro schemes and other renewables).


Its very short-sighted and selfish to do nothing just because others are not in a position to do better themselves.


I also wouldn't underestimate how much 3rd world countries recycle. I expect they actually recycle far more than the west does. they never let anything go to waste. Heck, we tend to dump most of our stuff in India and china for recycling where cheap labour (and sadly child labour) is used to strip equipment down. Rubbish tips in places like India a sadly crawling with children picking out every scrap of metal, plastic, discarded electronics, and anything that can be sold for pennies to buy food.

 

[Castiel]

You are looking at Global emissions, not European or US emissions. Most of the global don't own a car, most Europeans and Americans do own a care. In Europe and the US, twice as much CO2 is produced by people driving cars than by industry. That is a plain fact you cannot wiggle out of.

Strange that the figures don't support that with over half the GHGs coming from industrial sources...your own figures show this.

I would point out also, that my post had Global and US figures.

So the plain facts don't support your position, something you simply cannot wriggle out of.

The Global percentages are meaningless, what ever someone does in the UK that doesn't stop what another country does. For the UK to reduce CO2 emissions then reducing emissions form transportation is paramount!

Last time I looked it was in fact Global Climate Change, not localised climate change...so I think the global figures are somewhat more than meaningless. And again, on investigation, your figures show the opposite to what you are actually stating..for example, UK emissions coming from Cars and Taxis was 13% of all GHGs (58% of the transport sector, not 90%), lower than Business sector and equal to Residential sector and nowhere near the 54% produced by the combined Industrial Sectors.

Your supplied figures show this.

 

[Tefal]

How did people get so blasé about climate change? We're talking about the fate of every living thing on Earth, the only place in the universe that we know life exists, and you "gave up a while ago"?

no we're not we're talking about a few higher level mammal species, most of which are pretty ****ed anyway.

and some changes in the landscape big whoop.

we could always pic up on the old plan to make Africa more habitable by using a collection megaton nukes buried in a line to make a channel from the Mediterranean to the Sahara basin and turn it into an inland sea as its below sea level, would also provide a lot more rain for Africa.


and insead of just the original plan to improve African weather and arable land it would provide a nice place for a lot of excess water.

 

[Castiel]

To be clear, by "entitled" I meant the post smacked of "entitlement" (like glen8's below) - this attitude of "I want x so I'll have it, the environment be damned". Everybody does this (or aspires to do this) to varying degrees, because in the main, living a comfortable life is resource-intensive. Look at how cushy our lives our now than in any time in humanity's history. But the longer it goes on without significant reduction in fossil fuel use and/or environmental protection measures (across all sectors) the bigger the "credit card bill" to pay off in the coming centuries. There's no way around it.

As for the last line above - true, for a given (western) standard of living. So if reducing the population is the only solution, how would you go about it? Or would you encourage people to live however they like and let things unfold as they will? It's bound to be disastrous, and impact most on those who didn't have much part in it (the third world and nature).

And yet, the chap who buys his car and it stays operational for 50 years is in fact greener than the chap who buys his more fuel efficient car every 3-5 years....so the classic car owner is contributing to lowering the GHG rate. In fact do you know how he lives his life other than he owns an old car? What right do you have to judge him? And I destroying the planet because I drive a big car? Do you know anything else about how I live?

This is the point, big industry and for D.Ps benefit, this includes the big power companies and commercial and industrial transport sectors generate the vast majority of GHGs, the chap with his classic car isn't who we should be targeting...the main polluters are and until they are, pointing a judgemental finger at Mr Classic Car owner is pretty foolish.

To be clear, I'm not advocating a carefree, do nothing attitude...I do more than my part for sustainable living, but to vilify someone who owns a Classic Car is not only unfair, it's also wrong as if everyone owned a classic car instead of changing to a new one every 3 years or so, then GHGs and overall resources would be saved dramatically. We should congratulate him on using a classic car, not vilifying him.