Climate split from Ukraine thread

[johnhemming2]

So gradual that we are going backwards rapidly. y.

How do you measure this?

[biffvernon]

I would argue that this particular argument has not been lost it is merely that progress is gradual.

No. The argument we presented was that if we did not abandon fossil carbon the consequences would be dire.
We did not abandon fossil carbon and the consequences are dire.
The argument was lost.

[biffvernon]

Talking of James Hansen, nuclear power is another area where' he's gone a bit off piste.

Fortunately Mark Jacobson comes to our rescue:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jaco ... Hansen.pdf

[kenneal - lagger]

So gradual that we are going backwards rapidly. y.

How do you measure this?

By the length of time that we have to do something about it and by the amount of the reduction of carbon use per year that we will have to make.

Also, there is a set amount of carbon that we can burn to reach the 2 deg C political target. We have more than enough discovered oil and coal to reach this target but governments like ours are actively encouraging the increasing of the discovered inventory while actively discouraging the uptake of the renewable energy that must replace the fossil fuels. How is that not going backwards?

[johnhemming2]

So gradual that we are going backwards rapidly. y.

How do you measure this?

By the length of time that we have to do something about it and by the amount of the reduction of carbon use per year that we will have to make.

Also, there is a set amount of carbon that we can burn to reach the 2 deg C political target. We have more than enough discovered oil and coal to reach this target but governments like ours are actively encouraging the increasing of the discovered inventory while actively discouraging the uptake of the renewable energy that must replace the fossil fuels. How is that not going backwards?

Can you please then give me the figures that you use to state that we are "going backwards rapidly"?

[biffvernon]

Can you please then give me the figures that you use to state that we are "going backwards rapidly"?

You don't need the figures to understand the direction of travel, just the sign on the figures.
Our government has committed itself in legislation to maximising production of UK fossil carbon resources when it should have legislated to minimise such use.
Come on, John, what is it you don't understand about global warming?

[clv101]

It's very clear the UK is getting climate policy wrong.

I haven't been able to identify a single policy change over the last couple of years that either increases the rate of decarbonisation or increases the rate of energy efficiency improvement above preexisting rates. There there have been a whole slew of policies facilitating new carbon or slowing efficiency improvements.

[johnhemming2]

The question to me is about policy changes in the last 11 years. Some have IMO made some progress. Others not.

[biffvernon]

But right now we have to deal with the government we have right now. And, as Ken pointed out, it's taking us backwards.

[johnhemming2]

Not that I support the current government I would ask how the government is taking us backwards.

[biffvernon]

Read clv101's post above.

[johnhemming2]

clv101s post refers to the second differential with respect to time. He refers to increasing the rate of decarbonisation

If we assume the measurement is decarbonisation and within that the increase in the use of renewables. If we are continuing to decarbonise at a constant rate then we are not going backwards.

To me one of the key priorities is technological improvements with both PV and wind. Those do seem to be happening.

I accept that globally the use of fossil fuels is increasing, however. That is "going backwards". However, it is worth working out where the increased burning is.