"Just stop oil"
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Hybrids. Mostly leccy but when the diesel fires up they make a bloody racket.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,879
didn't china replace almost their entire fleet of busses over night with battery powered ones. 1000s of busses.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
That's because we have a shockingly inept government and a generally apathetic population:
Without robust global leadership and a World War style mobilisation of money, people and technology there is no way we will succeed in limiting global warming to +1.5°C (above pre-industrial levels) for the rest of this century.
All governments are in bed with the fossil fuel industry, they have a seat at the highest tables in all our governments and they have massive influence over the global media and hence voters. They will do everything they can to prevent or limit legislation anywhere which seeks to restrict the consumption of fossil fuels. Until there are well publicised deaths of vast numbers of people (in famines, extreme heatwaves etc) clearly due to global warming then unfortunately most people will be apathetic about it and won't elect politicians who stand on an aggressive anti-fossil fuels platform. The trouble with global warming is that once you see the worst symptoms of it, irreversible damage has already been done to the biosphere.
We will blast through the +1.5°C Paris Climate Agreement target. Unrealistic global emissions declines and huge quantities of carbon capture will be required to meet it now. To do it in a sustainable way we needed (assuming a budget of 600 gigatons of CO2) to be cutting emissions at about 3% per year starting in 2017. It didn't happen and, while I expect to see greenhouse gas emissions start to decline over the next decade, I’d be surprised if that decline is more than 15% by 2030.
Given the global lack of serious measures to solve this problem we need to be thinking very seriously about how to adapt our country's population to at least a global average +3°C* temperature increase by 2070. That will be hard to do because the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is already destabilised, committing the world to at least 3 metres of global sea-level rise once it has melted. The Greenland Ice Sheet (holding enough ice to eventually raise global sea levels by 7 metres) may be destabilised at around a 2°C increase. The Gulf Stream is already slowing down and recent research indicates it is far more unstable than was previously thought. If that stops it will have a very serious effect on the UK's climate (say goodbye to mild winters).
*I am ignoring the CH4 positive feedback loop system tipping points, as we don't know when they will kick in or how much they will accelerate global warming. Clearly, it has the potential to be much worse.
Where did you say per capita ?
But do tell me how India isn't a top polluter and contributer to climate change when it literally has over 20x the population of the UK and over 10x the amount of cars
As you say, use some basic reasoning please, for once in your life
No goalposts have been moved, I didn't say I said it I asked you if you understood what the term means and requested that you apply some common sense here, the context being you referring to some pollution-related data!
Now read the longer post you just quoted and see what it is referring to; people!
What does pointing out that India's cities are polluted and then later, essentially, that it's got a huge population got to do with this? How much do you think the average Indian pollutes relative to the average Canadian, American or Australian?
Apply some common sense here, this should be pretty basic.
The answer to the question above should demonstrate why the gaff below is silly when you've replied (using these arguments) to a post talking about people, not countries FFS!
It's not the local air quality in some city that's the issue in w.r.t global warming but rather CO2 emissions in general (you conflated different issues there) then you've just walked into the above gaff too, India simply has a large population... if you look at the per capita figures re: Indians they're not big contributors to CO2 emissions.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
You can do then when you have the output production rates like they have.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,879
overpopulation of some areas is certainly part of the problem.. not sure how you solve that (in a way which doesn't lead to civil war)No goalposts have been moved, I didn't say I said it I asked you if you understood what the term means and requested that you apply some common sense here, the context being you referring to some pollution-related data!
Now read the longer post you just quoted and see what it is referring to; people!
What does pointing out that India's cities are polluted and then later, essentially, that it's got a huge population got to do with this? How much do you think the average Indian pollutes relative to the average Canadian, American or Australian?
Apply some common sense here, this should be pretty basic.
The answer to the question above should demonstrate why the gaff below is silly when you've replied (using these arguments) to a post talking about people, not countries FFS!
By improving living standards via economic growth... which, ironically, means potentially more pollution.
It's pretty well studied, as economic conditions in a country improve/standards of living increase people have fewer kids and trend towards Western norms.
Though China's population is probably going to shrink in the future and India's birth rate is only 2.05 births per woman these days.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,657
They might only produce 9x less than the UK per person but it doesn't matter if they're breeding like ******* rabbits and have 20x the population, the fact is they produce more emissions than the UKNo goalposts have been moved, I didn't say I said it I asked you if you understood what the term means and requested that you apply some common sense here, the context being you referring to some pollution-related data!
Now read the longer post you just quoted and see what it is referring to; people!
What does pointing out that India's cities are polluted and then later, essentially, that it's got a huge population got to do with this? How much do you think the average Indian pollutes relative to the average Canadian, American or Australian?
Apply some common sense here, this should be pretty basic.
The answer to the question above should demonstrate why the gaff below is silly when you've replied (using these arguments) to a post talking about people, not countries FFS!
It's not the local air quality in some city that's the issue in w.r.t global warming but rather CO2 emissions in general (you conflated different issues there) then you've just walked into the above gaff too, India simply has a large population... if you look at the per capita figures re: Indians they're not big contributors to CO2 emissions.
Again you're making the same gaff by talking about the country's total population, the argument was about people! Individuals... Go look at some per capita stats.
Also, you've thrown in some outdated Churchill-esq line of the sort that is usually used as evidence of him being a racist but instead, you've decided to use it at face value in an actual argument, which as per the previous two arguments (local air quality in India's cities + India is a big country/has a big population) is a completely flawed one.
^^^ That isn't how rabbits breed!
Last edited:
It seems just a fact of life that new tech comes out and it takes a few generations for it to go mainstream.
I thought part of the issue with solar is the material demand required to supply a huge proportion of the country far outstrips the current supply.
The only way to overcome that is either sourcing different materials (more R&D) or searching for the materials (more R&D).
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,657
Last edited:
What even is this ? You do like to chat some wham
India is fine
What you are basically saying is a country with a bigger population emits more cO2.
It’s just not relevant when thinking about global warming as has been said numerous times. No one is saying it’s ‘fine’.
The really obvious and important point is that if their population had the lifestyle of your average U.K. citizen or an American, that number would be several times larger.
They as individuals emit so much less cO2, they consume less and they actually live more sustainable lives than someone in the U.K. and significantly more sustainable than your average American in terms of emissions. We also export a significant amount of our emissions to other countries, we get them to produce our fuel, goods and food for us and wash our hands with the consequences.
The evidence is really clear, if you can’t see it, I’m not sure what else there is to say.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,657
Not really, not until recently, you can count production of offspring as contribution to CO2 emissions, their emissions are as much yours by fact of giving birth to them, it's as guilty an action as any lifestyle choice
Last edited:
What even is this ? You do like to chat some wham
India is fine
This is where you need to pay closer attention to what was said and look up terms like "per capita" again. What are you actually arguing here and how does that apply to what you responded to?
A bigger country with a massive population that wasn't very developed now emits more than it did decades ago? So what? What does that have to do with your comments about them breeding like rabbits? Or the amount of emissions per capita? Birth rates trend down as countries develop.
Last edited:
Jeeze, is this really hard to follow?
People having lots of kids tends to happen with (real) poverty, you're basically trying to blame some of the poorest people in the world without good access to family planning for doing what humans have done for centuries!
(you can just type Indian birth rate into google and they'll show you that, that as things have improved for Indians the birth rate has decreased)
As I already said:
Hans Rosling on Religion, Babies, and Poverty
“I’m going to talk about religion. But it’s a broad and very delicate subject, so I have to limit myself. Therefore I will limit myself to only talk about the links between religion and [...]
www.newsecuritybeat.org
Getting people out of real poverty, get access to family planning -> birth rate decreases.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,657
You tried to make out Indians were innocent in all of this, when the poster mentioned his wish of DESCENDANTS suffering for the actions of their parents, they are not innocent, they are as responsible as everyone else
So please shut your trap with this nonsense of per capita that you are just making up on the spot, there is no argument, his opinion is entirely valid to have, so just stop, India through their own fault of epic breeding (even your chart shows 6 births per woman in the 60's) is a massive contributer to climate change, nothing you say will change this fact and throwing in BUTTTTTTTTTTT PER CAPITA is utterly irrelevant when per capita was NEVER mentioned
re the breeding like rabbits, it's a figure of speech but I should have realised the resident spectrum troll can only manage things in literal terms
They're not, you'd need 8 Indians for 1 American or 5 for 1 German...
Also, do you think pollution is distributed evenly? Or perhaps the richer Indians pollute a bit more? Now who do you think will be the victims if some cities in India become unlivable? Those who can afford to move or can afford air conditioning or...?
Come on, apply some common sense again.
re the breeding like rabbits, it's a figure of speech but I should have realised the resident spectrum troll can only manage things in literal terms
That's a total cop-out, what else do you think the term "breed like rabbits" means if not referring to having lots of babies?
You just threw some words in and meant nothing by them and it's on the "spectrum" to assume they meant something? Total BS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,657
It's not just CO2 emissions though for pollution is it ? Have you seen the state of India, it's a **** hole, polluted rivers, destroyed eco systems, massive cities, and as I said 10x the amount of cars we have, https://www.epa.gov/heatislands matter for warming as well, stop moving the goal posts and being the guy below, just accept that India as a nation are far more destructive to the climate and environment than we ever will be, not that we are free from guilt we are equally contempt, but to claim Indians play no part and are innocent in a global crisis is absolutely laughable, all that just to try and get a W over random forum members, is your life so empty ?
Having 6 babies per woman isn't lots of babies ? Even having 2 per woman is MORE than the 1.5 we have, learn to accept figures of speech instead of being this guy
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,315
- Location
- London
Our cumulative CO2 emissions are still higher than India so this isn't really true, at least for the next few years.