Greta Thunberg

[Orionaut]

Anything forward from this current point in time is the unknown

Apart from one thing anyways

There is absolutly nothing that the UK can possibly do to slow, prevent, or reverse climate change, irrespective of whether it is entirely natural or as a result of human activity.

Absolutely nothing

And this is why...

A quarter of those emissions are being generated by not much more than 10% of the worlds growing population.

China and India are large emitters because they have large populations. Not because the people live particularly well. And most of Africa, a continent with a population that will exceed that of the entire planet at the end of WW2 by 2050 or so. isn't even on the list. (lumped together for now with south America and so on in "Rest of World")

Globally Most people, on a per-capita basis, produce very little CO2. That means that they, as individuals are easily likely to double or triple the amount they generate over the next 50 years as their countries develop. of course, as individuals they will still only be producing a small fraction of what people currently do in developed countries. But globally this will mean that anything we do to cut CO2 in the developed countries will be totally overwhelmed by growth in the far larger developing world.

Even if we can convince people in the developing world that, for the sake of the planet, they need to stay poor and endure a crappy standard of living to such an extent that they do not increase their current modest CO2 emissions, Population growth alone will still overwhelm anything that we do to reduce emissions.

So, any attempt to halt, slow or reverse "Climate change" by cutting developed world CO2 emissions is simply expensive and futile virtue signalling.

If there was no harm associated to this futile expenditure then that wouldn't be too bad.

But resources are limited, and anything we spend on futile attempts to control the climate will detract from our ability to spend money on the things we will need to do to protect ourselves from the consequences of climate change.

 

[RxR]

If Africa reaches the mooted 16bn population level (as suggested by at least one author) by 2100, things will be difficult.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

If Africa reaches the mooted 16bn population level (as suggested by at least one author) by 2100, things will be difficult.

Best send Greta to Africa. She’ll tell them what’s what.

 

[RxR]

Well, something has to be done about the cement problem CO2 emissions, else there will be side-effects limiting African market growth. Though I forsee other problems if they reach 16bn.

The cement problem:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

 

[4K8KW10]

If Africa reaches the mooted 16bn population level (as suggested by at least one author) by 2100, things will be difficult.

Africa's population is never going to grow to 16 billion, even if because they can't produce so much food to feed themselves.
Are you talking about this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/africas-population-explosion-will-change-humanity-2015-8

It's 4 billions, not 16 billions !

Best send Greta to Africa. She’ll tell them what’s what.

How is Greta responsible for Africa's population growth?

Well, something has to be done about the cement problem CO2 emissions, else there will be side-effects limiting African market growth. Though I forsee other problems if they reach 16bn.

The cement problem:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844

Mind you, I expect the most-pressing environment market technology problems to be pretty done and dusted within 3 years. I also see several fundamental structural flaws in the current idea of the trying-to-be mainstream carbon pricing and trading agenda being pushed.

Comparing the production of carbon dioxide as a byproduct of this type of production process to the weight of the carbon dioxide production during fossil fuels burning?
Well, but fossil fuels don't produce only carbon monoxide but also hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and people breathe, so also produce carbon dioxide..

 

[RxR]

4K8KW10, no I wasn't referring to the UN figures. I was referring to a different article by a systems research team I read yesterday that includes Human System feedback effects directly bidirectionally coupled to the Environment System.

As that article noted, failure to incorporate the required actual bidirectional feedbacks has, and continues to render various UN predictions, including population estimates, highly unreliable. If I can refind the article, I will post a link.

e: Here you go, it's on Oxford Academic:

https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/3/4/470/2669331

 

[4K8KW10]

4K8KW10, no I wasn't referring to the dodgy UN figures. I was referring to a different article by a systems research team I read yesterday that includes Human System feedback effects directly bidirectionally coupled to the Environment System.

As that article noted, failure to incorporate the required actual bidirectional feedbacks has, and continues to render various UN predictions, including population estimates, highly unreliable. If I can refind the article, I will post a link.

The population growth is estimated to continue until sometime around 2080 and then begin to slowly fall because Africa, India and China will reach the level of human development | living standards needed to happen so.

 

[RxR]

I posted the link above. Their criticisms are reasonable.

 

[FoxEye]

But resources are limited, and anything we spend on futile attempts to control the climate will detract from our ability to spend money on the things we will need to do to protect ourselves from the consequences of climate change.

Ironically that's one of the reasons to invest in green, renewable tech...

The oil, coal, etc, will run out. And it takes several million years to make more, naturally

So why not move to green energy sources, you're going to have to one way or another, before fossil fuels run out.

Heck, even tho China is opening coal power plants at a horrific speed, they are investing also billions into renewables.

We basically have no choice. It's only timescales that are being argued.

Some want fossil fuels to be exploited until the day they run out, and let's not worry about whether it's harmful or not.

Others want to make the switch now, or as soon as possible.

I personally think we should switch as soon as possible. We are capable of doing this, we don't need to keep digging coal out of the hills, it's just easy and cheap to carry on doing so.

And economics trumps all.

 

[The_Abyss]

I imagine that's pure assumption on your part.

Or have you met people who changed their lives after watching Greta on TV? I'd say that if that has happened at all, it'll be one person in millions.

I've changed my behaviour. As has my son. And my parents. And, some, of my colleagues. Sometimes all it takes is a nudge.

You're someone who's aware of the issues. Have you made any changes?

 

[FoxEye]

I've changed my behaviour. As has my son. And my parents. And, some, of my colleagues. Sometimes all it takes is a nudge.

You're someone who's aware of the issues. Have you made any changes?

Not because of Greta, no. I make changes based on new evidence presented to me.

Greta hasn't presented any new evidence about anything, so making changes in response to anything she's said or done would be illogical.

Viewing the antics of an angsty teen who is worried but has no answers, does not warrant making changes.

Changes are normally based or reason, research, a plan for doing things differently, and a projected outcome from making the change.

Greta has supplied precisely none of this.

e: Others in this thread have said it's not her job to provide any of this; that she is just there to "inspire" people to make changes.

Well, I guess I don't find an angsty teenager particularly inspiring, either

 

[RxR]

...

And economics trumps all.

Which is why the environment problem will get fixed as a side-effect of ensuring the continuation of economic growth.

 

[Threepwood]

even tho China is opening coal power plants at a horrific speed

This has really slowed down though, heck they have even stopped burning coal in a number of coal power plants too, and not ones that were due for closure. They are limiting new builds now.

What they have not done is stopped their skilled coal power plant builders from building them abroad.

Greta has supplied precisely none of this.

Which is why she is saying listen to the people who are.

 

[Threepwood]

Which is why the environment problem will get fixed as a side-effect of ensuring the continuation of economic growth.

I got no problem with changes that give this some extra breathing room to happen.

 

[FoxEye]

Which is why she is saying listen to the people who are.

So she's a pointless middle-man then?

I'm fairly sure the climate message existed before Greta, and people were listening before Greta.

The worst thing that could happen is that she takes credit for the people who already made changes, and the people who are doing valuable research looking for solutions.

But we all know celebrities are valued more than engineers, etc. Greta has become a celebrity. It's sad that she will end up winning the Nobel prize or something, for basically being a front man for a marketing team.

 

[Threepwood]

So she's a pointless middle-man then?

I'm fairly sure the climate message existed before Greta, and people were listening before Greta.

She directly took her message to the politicians from the very start. Yes, there are already a lot of people who worry about the climate, also a lot of people who do not understand why the powers that be are not doing more to tackle it. Not just climate change either, but enviromental issues, plants, wildlife, biodiversity etc.

 

[FoxEye]

She directly took her message to the politicians from the very start. Yes, there are already a lot of people who worry about the climate, also a lot of people who do not understand why the powers that be are not doing more to tackle it. Not just climate change either, but enviromental issues, plants, wildlife, biodiversity etc.

There's no evidence that she's changed any nation's environmental policies. Or had a material affect.

A fair few have laughed her off, inc Trump.

Wouldn't you be worried if a 16 year old could materially affect policy?

I'm happy when policy is changed as a result of scientific study. Less happy when it happens through lobbying, but hey ho, money talks.

But if a 16 year old angsty teenager was responsible for changing national and international policy? I'm sure it didn't happen; it would be worrying if it did.

I really don't think any of the research bodies needed Greta's help to publicise their research, or her contacts/influence to get an audience with policy makers.

The fact is that policy is only partly determined by what you or I or the masses want, anyhow. Big business has as much input, if not more, in policy decisions.

Greta's influence is not going to trump BP's influence, or OPEC's, or whoever.

 

[The_Abyss]

Not because of Greta, no. I make changes based on new evidence presented to me.

Greta hasn't presented any new evidence about anything, so making changes in response to anything she's said or done would be illogical.

Viewing the antics of an angsty teen who is worried but has no answers, does not warrant making changes.

Changes are normally based or reason, research, a plan for doing things differently, and a projected outcome from making the change.

Greta has supplied precisely none of this.

e: Others in this thread have said it's not her job to provide any of this; that she is just there to "inspire" people to make changes.

Well, I guess I don't find an angsty teenager particularly inspiring, either

She brought increased awareness that cannot be questioned.

Unlike the rambling prejudiced posts of UK regional posters on this forum who were strangely unable to find the same success and amplification. Yet they remained critics, despite supporting the outcome. I guess that they didn't inspire either, nor make a change. Just a glimmer of temporary 'angsty' light.

 

[Threepwood]

Wouldn't you be worried if a 16 year old could materially affect policy?

Well, I believe that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, so probably not no. I'm even tempted to have a couple of 16 year old MP's, if the public voted for them, I know, shocking.

A fair few have laughed her off, inc Trump.

She has trolled that man rather well, pretty good for a 16 year old, credit where credit is due.

I'm happy when policy is changed as a result of scientific study. Less happy when it happens through lobbying, but hey ho, money talks.

Is that not what she is saying? Listen and change because of the scientific evidence? And she herself is saying enough with the money stuff, tone it down for the sake of the planet. I'm not sure about lobbying, that too is a bit like money, it can be used for good or for bad.

I really don't think any of the research bodies needed Greta's help to publicise their research

I do, and so does my wife! I mean and so do a lot of those research bodies.

The fact is that policy is only partly determined by what you or I or the masses want, anyhow.

Part of it all is to effect this, no? You may not think it has changed anyone, but, it has... especially the young. It's anecdotal but look at the twitter exchange between jeremy clarkson and his daughter, it's good for there to be role models like Greta.

 

[FoxEye]

She brought increased awareness that cannot be questioned.

Of herself.

Otherwise yes I will happily question that she raised awareness of anything.

The rest of your post is just an attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't view Greta as the next messiah. Not going to bother replying to that.

@Threepwood Yeah I get it you think she's changed the world. You stick with that belief mate, but you're not presenting any evidence beyond your faith in Greta.

And if the best thing she's done is to say, "Listen to the experts," then I'm sorry but that amounts to a whole lot of nothing in my book.

We'll have to agree to disagree. This debate is very light on facts and figures.