I give up, I really do.
What is the point? I am so fed up now.
The Stern Report
Moderator: Peak Moderation
So I'm sitting here listening to David Milliband not answering the stupid questions Eddie Mair is asking him on PM on Radio 4 and having read my way through this thread and some of the comments on the BBC forum the only thing that comes into my head is a scene from Monty Pythons' Life of Brian - the bit where Brian gets arrested and Judith runs back to the JPF HQ and tells Reg that Brian is out there and doing something and Reg's reaction is to look from Loretta to Judith to Loretta and he grabs the piece of paper on the table screws it up, throws it across the room and says "New motion!", and they start scribbling down a brand new motion.
I give up, I really do.
What is the point? I am so fed up now.
I give up, I really do.
What is the point? I am so fed up now.
Oh my doomer hat's on big time. Hell, just last week a friend of mine was in a car crash right? Some guy lost control on a wet hill and went straight into the back of her. Huge mess, one of them in a ditch and bits of car all over the place. Can you guess what the queue of traffic behind them did? Simply moved out the way and carried on driving baby, THEY HAVE DINNER TO EAT DAMN IT, MOVE OUT THE WAY!
In principle, people don't mind helping out as long as they don't have to do anything. Look at Live 8:
Bono: Help Africa!
Public: How?
Bono: Say no to poverty!
Public: Ok! No!
Bono: YAY!
Public: YAY!
Bono: Ok, you can carry on now.
*Meanwhile in Africa*
Starving person 1: Say, did you just hear something?
Starving person 2: ......nope. *dies*
It's fine with me, I've got my retreat down in the depths of Cornwall. If people don't want to work together, fine, I'll see them later, enjoy the riot, they all took the piss when I stocked up on veggie seeds anyway!
In principle, people don't mind helping out as long as they don't have to do anything. Look at Live 8:
Bono: Help Africa!
Public: How?
Bono: Say no to poverty!
Public: Ok! No!
Bono: YAY!
Public: YAY!
Bono: Ok, you can carry on now.
*Meanwhile in Africa*
Starving person 1: Say, did you just hear something?
Starving person 2: ......nope. *dies*
It's fine with me, I've got my retreat down in the depths of Cornwall. If people don't want to work together, fine, I'll see them later, enjoy the riot, they all took the piss when I stocked up on veggie seeds anyway!
If Cheyney & the Oilco.s have an interest in seeing people shift from denial straight to defeatism,
then they must be really delighted by some of the above comments.
Co-operation ? You ain't seen nothing yet,
--- primarily because there has been a thascist ideology in power for 26 years,
with an unprecedented propaganda machine.
As that ideology's failures are shown up in both GW & PO, then, IF & WHEN we find some serious leadership,
the present crises could be the catalyst for an entirely unprecedented level of global co-operation.
So for the present, maybe we should focus not on negative (and self-fuelling) predictions of what others will and won't do,
but rather on just what precedents of co-operation & change we ourselves can achieve ?
Regards,
(having staunchly resisted any doomerism for 36 years)
Bill
then they must be really delighted by some of the above comments.
Co-operation ? You ain't seen nothing yet,
--- primarily because there has been a thascist ideology in power for 26 years,
with an unprecedented propaganda machine.
As that ideology's failures are shown up in both GW & PO, then, IF & WHEN we find some serious leadership,
the present crises could be the catalyst for an entirely unprecedented level of global co-operation.
So for the present, maybe we should focus not on negative (and self-fuelling) predictions of what others will and won't do,
but rather on just what precedents of co-operation & change we ourselves can achieve ?
Regards,
(having staunchly resisted any doomerism for 36 years)
Bill
The Stern Report
Hmmmm...momentarily de-lurking here for a shortish doomerish rant.
I can't believe how positive this report is about how we can avoid dangerous (hey don't forget expensive!) climate change consequences. Peak oil aside for a moment, just the fact that the eastern himalayan glaciers are melting at the rate of 7% a year scares the crap out of me. Twenty years from now and they will be gone along with all the major rivers in south east Asia. Nothing we do now can prevent this (CO2 lag of 25/30 years).
Considering how many hundreds of millions of people (just in China alone) this leaves with no water I guess this means India and China will either implode or let rip in resource wars. And maybe not in 20 years but a lot sooner. China has already been tweaking the noses of the Americans by firing lasers to blind their spy satellites, getting away with it because of America being in debt to them. Kung Fu lessons are to be made compulsory for all Chinese children for keep fit reasons - handy too for if you need a large army. Of course, as the water situation gets worse this will cause financial markets to crash too, India and China are a very big part of the global economy and will be more so in years to come.
Please someone correct me if this sounds off and I know I forgot to put in the steady depletion of ancient aquifers.
Going back to lurking now in a gloomy fashion...
I can't believe how positive this report is about how we can avoid dangerous (hey don't forget expensive!) climate change consequences. Peak oil aside for a moment, just the fact that the eastern himalayan glaciers are melting at the rate of 7% a year scares the crap out of me. Twenty years from now and they will be gone along with all the major rivers in south east Asia. Nothing we do now can prevent this (CO2 lag of 25/30 years).
Considering how many hundreds of millions of people (just in China alone) this leaves with no water I guess this means India and China will either implode or let rip in resource wars. And maybe not in 20 years but a lot sooner. China has already been tweaking the noses of the Americans by firing lasers to blind their spy satellites, getting away with it because of America being in debt to them. Kung Fu lessons are to be made compulsory for all Chinese children for keep fit reasons - handy too for if you need a large army. Of course, as the water situation gets worse this will cause financial markets to crash too, India and China are a very big part of the global economy and will be more so in years to come.
Please someone correct me if this sounds off and I know I forgot to put in the steady depletion of ancient aquifers.
Going back to lurking now in a gloomy fashion...
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
Ive just seen Milliband on Channel 4 with George Monbiot and John Snow asking the questions.
I have to see Milliband is either totally insane, trying to solve the unsolveable or just extremely crap at maths.
George Monbiot asked "how can expanding air travel by 150% and spending 11 billion on expanding the road network be compatible with cutting Co2 by 60%".
Milliband responded (in short) that the CO2 reductions will have to be reduced in other areas...
So lets assume current UK emissions = 100 units, with the breakdown roughly as below:
Air + Car = 25 per 100
Homes = 25 per 100
Energy Companies= 25 per 100
Industry= 25 per 100
Therefore assuming emissions stayed the same overall but air and car grew by 150% then our emissions make up would have to be:
Air + Car = 62.5 per 100 (up 150%)
Homes = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Energy companies = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Industry = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Now in order to reduce overall emissions by 60%- the air travel and car already exceeds the overall target and all the other sectors would be left with zero emissions!!
In other words overall current emissions in units = 100 , reduce by 60% , you get 40 units - air + car = 62.5 which is greater than40 units by 22.5 units with nothing left for homes, energy companies and industry!!
So you can fly and drive - but you will freeze, starve to death penniless and unemployed.
Milliband, what a dumb f*ck.
(all numbers rough - but fine for making me point
)
I have to see Milliband is either totally insane, trying to solve the unsolveable or just extremely crap at maths.
George Monbiot asked "how can expanding air travel by 150% and spending 11 billion on expanding the road network be compatible with cutting Co2 by 60%".
Milliband responded (in short) that the CO2 reductions will have to be reduced in other areas...
So lets assume current UK emissions = 100 units, with the breakdown roughly as below:
Air + Car = 25 per 100
Homes = 25 per 100
Energy Companies= 25 per 100
Industry= 25 per 100
Therefore assuming emissions stayed the same overall but air and car grew by 150% then our emissions make up would have to be:
Air + Car = 62.5 per 100 (up 150%)
Homes = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Energy companies = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Industry = 12.5 per 100 (down 50%)
Now in order to reduce overall emissions by 60%- the air travel and car already exceeds the overall target and all the other sectors would be left with zero emissions!!
In other words overall current emissions in units = 100 , reduce by 60% , you get 40 units - air + car = 62.5 which is greater than40 units by 22.5 units with nothing left for homes, energy companies and industry!!
So you can fly and drive - but you will freeze, starve to death penniless and unemployed.
Milliband, what a dumb f*ck.
(all numbers rough - but fine for making me point
)TB
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
From Stern:
Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in
extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons.
Preliminary estimates suggest that the fraction of land area in
extreme drought at any one time will increase from 1% to 30% by the end of this century. In other regions, warmer air and warmer oceans are likely to drive more intense storms, particularly hurricanes and typhoons.
1% to 30% ... whilst, due to the wording, this is an unusual metric to visualise, it still screams: "We have a problem Houston".
A doubling of the current situation (from 1% to 2%) could take place in 3 years or so!
Take a look at Stern here for some fun data: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9A2 ... mpacts.pdf
Last edited by Vortex on 30 Oct 2006, 20:28, edited 1 time in total.
The part that neither Stern nor Milliband nor Brown can mention
is that,
with various feedback loops already active and accelerating under a CO2 concentration of ~ 381ppmv,
(some of which can potentially utterly dwarf annual human emissions)
they will not stop accelerating unless & until that concentration is made to decline drastically,
but Stern proposes (absurdly) "stabilizing" the level at between 500 & 550ppmv,
which would imply that TPTB are now in fact expecting a massive geo-economic depression as the feedback loops take off and wreck the climate.
SUVs & air-jaunts would be made unaffordable by that depression - and Labour would not have to dent its profitable subservience to corporate interests.
The Stern Report thus is actually an admission that this G'ment has no intention of taking sufficient action to rectify the problem.
Regards,
Bill
is that,
with various feedback loops already active and accelerating under a CO2 concentration of ~ 381ppmv,
(some of which can potentially utterly dwarf annual human emissions)
they will not stop accelerating unless & until that concentration is made to decline drastically,
but Stern proposes (absurdly) "stabilizing" the level at between 500 & 550ppmv,
which would imply that TPTB are now in fact expecting a massive geo-economic depression as the feedback loops take off and wreck the climate.
SUVs & air-jaunts would be made unaffordable by that depression - and Labour would not have to dent its profitable subservience to corporate interests.
The Stern Report thus is actually an admission that this G'ment has no intention of taking sufficient action to rectify the problem.
Regards,
Bill
-
PowerSwitchJames
- Posts: 934
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: London
- Contact:
I am often caught in two or more minds as to whether government and their advisors are stupid or not.
However, if I were to give the government, and Stern, the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they are trying to gently ease the idea of what needs to be done onto the public and business.
If they came out and took the Monbiot line and said, 'We must cut our emissions by 90% by 2030, and by the way, even if we do that, we're still going to f*** the planet up a bit anyway', then I would imagine most of the uninformed general public would support the last-man-standing choice of Heinberg's powerdown solution, preferring to burn out than fade away.
This approach I think is designed to build a sense of urgency but calm, a feeling of fear but confidence, in both the public and business.
However, if I were to give the government, and Stern, the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they are trying to gently ease the idea of what needs to be done onto the public and business.
If they came out and took the Monbiot line and said, 'We must cut our emissions by 90% by 2030, and by the way, even if we do that, we're still going to f*** the planet up a bit anyway', then I would imagine most of the uninformed general public would support the last-man-standing choice of Heinberg's powerdown solution, preferring to burn out than fade away.
This approach I think is designed to build a sense of urgency but calm, a feeling of fear but confidence, in both the public and business.
James -
I'd like to share your perspective on Stern, but,
with a growing clamour of scientific reports of the feedback loops intensifying,
and Stern glibly proposing a wildly indulgent level of up to 550ppmv,
at which not to peak and then decline but supposedly to stabilize,
the whole exercize appears to be a farce which seems less likely to raise public confidence
than to shatter it with the simultaneous recognition of the gravity of the problem
and the canute-like incompetence/corruption of TPTB.
Or are the public expected not to notice that stabilization is impossible once the feedback loops are sufficiently active ?
Regards,
Bill
I'd like to share your perspective on Stern, but,
with a growing clamour of scientific reports of the feedback loops intensifying,
and Stern glibly proposing a wildly indulgent level of up to 550ppmv,
at which not to peak and then decline but supposedly to stabilize,
the whole exercize appears to be a farce which seems less likely to raise public confidence
than to shatter it with the simultaneous recognition of the gravity of the problem
and the canute-like incompetence/corruption of TPTB.
Or are the public expected not to notice that stabilization is impossible once the feedback loops are sufficiently active ?
Regards,
Bill
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
I think this is a fair point.PowerSwitchJames wrote:I am often caught in two or more minds as to whether government and their advisors are stupid or not.
However, if I were to give the government, and Stern, the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they are trying to gently ease the idea of what needs to be done onto the public and business.
If they came out and took the Monbiot line and said, 'We must cut our emissions by 90% by 2030, and by the way, even if we do that, we're still going to f*** the planet up a bit anyway', then I would imagine most of the uninformed general public would support the last-man-standing choice of Heinberg's powerdown solution, preferring to burn out than fade away.
This approach I think is designed to build a sense of urgency but calm, a feeling of fear but confidence, in both the public and business.
Also the TPTB may also realise that PO = peak energy and potentially peak CO2 emissions anyway?
I suspect we (as in the world ) will try and burn more coal post PO , but production in coal may decline as more expensive oil may lead to less coal productivity?
Economic decline may also reduce the demand for electricity - if unemployment is high - then out goes demand for big TV's , PC's , stereos and all those other things we dont really need but leave on stand by and overuse anyway!
Economic issues may arise in the west first - this would impact even more severly in Chinidia - which may halt the export led growth which is exponentially increasing these countries emissions.
TB
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
