COP26

[Clint]

I wonder what the decision would be if the earth went into another ice age.

 

[foxy]

We are at the moment coming out of an ice age, the reduction in fossil fuel will only slow the inevitable. Unless the world does a bit of a tilt and we do start going back into an ice age.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

We are at the moment coming out of an ice age, the reduction in fossil fuel will only slow the inevitable. Unless the world does a bit of a tilt and we do start going back into an ice age.

That‘s my theory. I agree that the burning of fossil fuels could well be detrimental to the environment from a climate change perspective, but I wonder what difference reducing the rate at which we burn them will do anyway. It surely won’t make a lot of difference whether we burn them all in the next 50 years or slow down a bit and burn them all over the next few hundred years. It needs to stop completely.

 

[foxy]

Not a theory but a fact. I am sure there must be the brains around to come up with a solution for an alternative to fossil fuels. The talk here in Australia is nuclear, even though it was said it would never happen. I also read the uranium supplies won't last that long anyway.

 

[Clint]

Pi55ing in the wind...that chap in charge of Brazil promotes burning down the Amazon so they can grow more stuff he sells to the rest of the world. Who's gonna stop that? Who's gonna turn the tide on mass consumerism and the corporate greed that runs it all?
It would probably be easier to kindly ask all the people who live in the cities that will get washed away to go live up a mountain.

 

[Bernie]

Pi55ing in the wind...that chap in charge of Brazil promotes burning down the Amazon so they can grow more stuff he sells to the rest of the world.

Why single out Bolsonaro when the same thing on a similar scale is happening in Peru, Africa and South East Asia? Other natural habitats are being destroyed in other parts of the world to build houses and roads; these are just as important.This ideological stance does weaken the scientific argument.

Who's gonna turn the tide on mass consumerism and the corporate greed that runs it all?
It would probably be easier to kindly ask all the people who live in the cities that will get washed away to go live up a mountain.

Corporate greed is another phrase we use to wash our guilt. In the end it is we who buy goods and services. It is our choice as individuals.

 

[pilgrimhudd]

Why single out Bolsonaro when the same thing on a similar scale is happening in Peru, Africa and South East Asia? Other natural habitats are being destroyed in other parts of the world to build houses and roads; these are just as important.This ideological stance does weaken the scientific argument.

Because the Amazon is synonymous with Brazil and the fact that Brazil has lost 26.2m hectares of primary forest in the last 20 years, the next worst South American country was Bolivia with 3m hectares. It's not all Bolsonaro, but he has reduced fines for illegal deforestation and seems to have turned a blind eye to much of it.

I'd agree though that other habitats are very important, Siberian forest and permafrost areas of Russia being one of them.

Deforestation: Which countries are still cutting down trees? - BBC News

 

[TonyT]

Not a theory but a fact. I am sure there must be the brains around to come up with a solution for an alternative to fossil fuels. The talk here in Australia is nuclear, even though it was said it would never happen. I also read the uranium supplies won't last that long anyway.

Saying that something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the last ice age ended 11700 years ago, so we are now in an inter glacial period. Inter glacial periods have alway, by definition, meant rising temperatures. But the issue now is the rate of warming which is exacerbated by the unnatural emission of carbon dioxide as a result of burning fossil fuels since the 19th century. Even the UN accepts that as a fact.

 

[foxy]

Saying that something is a fact, doesn’t make it so. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the last ice age ended 11700 years ago, so we are now in an inter glacial period. Inter glacial periods have alway, by definition, meant rising temperatures. But the issue now is the rate of warming which is exacerbated by the unnatural emission of carbon dioxide as a result of burning fossil fuels since the 19th century. Even the UN accepts that as a fact.

I thought that is what I said? It is a fact that we are coming out of an ice age!

 

[TonyT]

I thought that is what I said? It is a fact that we are coming out of an ice age!

Which is wrong. We’ve already come out and are now in an inter glacial period.

 

[foxy]

Which is wrong. We’ve already come out and are now in an inter glacial period.

Which means we are still in the process of coming out of the last ice age!

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

The conference is a chance for a lot of people to make speeches about how concerned they are about the planet and set targets that are just far enough in the future to seem within grasp, but far enough into the future to pass on to someone else in power so they don't get the blame while not rocking the boats of the poeple who give them large sums of money too much so they can carry on enriching themselves.

They don't really care. They have enough money to keep themsleves and their families safe from the famines, droughts, rising sea levels, wars and mass migrations that seem ever more inevitable.

 

[foxy]

The conference is a chance for a lot of people to make speeches about how concerned they are about the planet and set targets that are just far enough in the future to seem within grasp, but far enough into the future to pass on to someone else in power so they don't get the blame while not rocking the boats of the poeple who give them large sums of money too much so they can carry on enriching themselves.

They don't really care. They have enough money to keep themsleves and their families safe from the famines, droughts, rising sea levels, wars and mass migrations that seem ever more inevitable.

Money is never going to save anyone from droughts, famines and rising sea levels. It will be every man for himself.

 

[jof]

The issue isn't that the world has been warmer before, it's that our actions are warming it up much faster than evolution can cope with.
So the ecosystem (which includes us) is struggling to cope with the rate of change.

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

.

 

[foxy]

The issue isn't that the world has been warmer before, it's that our actions are warming it up much faster than evolution can cope with.
So the ecosystem (which includes us) is struggling to cope with the rate of change.

#22

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

Money is never going to save anyone from droughts, famines and rising sea levels. It will be every man for himself.

Ah, but the more money you have, the better you can protect yourself. You can afford to be on higher ground and pay more for scarce resources.

 

[foxy]

Ah, but the more money you have, the better you can protect yourself. You can afford to be on higher ground and pay more for scarce resources.

Money won't come into a bulls roar the equation. Survival of the fittest.

 

[johncrobinson]

Foxy is that what its now come to,???

The rule of the jungle,???

I do however agree that all this "carbon trading" is **** absolute utter ****.
People and business need to thrive or die.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Green wash and bla bla bla -