Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Or climate, to be more precise.

It just doesn't stop. Streams or rain water gushing through Sloane Square tube, NRW and the Pfalz yielding two hundred dead, summat or other happening in New Zealand which barely hit the news, Zhengzhou being streamed, quite literally, on social media, and now Maharashtra and Goa. In July. While the USA, Canada, and Siberia are toast.

All of us have been aware that climate change is set to cause weather episodes which are both unprecedented and difficult to manage. The thoughts of the low lying areas of Bangladesh and 100m people being over run along with various Pacific and Indian Ocean island states have been with us for years. Only a shill or a fool would ignore the pleadings of Santa Greta. To a greater or lesser extent, most of us have become aware of our own emissions culpability and have begun to do something about it.

But the dial seems to have shifted. Within the last month, (if you ignore Siberia last year and decidedly scorchio Norway the year before that), those previously hypothetical far off chickens have come home to roost. Or roast. And boy, is it hitting hard.

The September German elections look set to be overshadowed, if not dominated, by the response to and forward planning for localised catastrophes as shit becomes undeniably real.

I just wonder what we have in our collective quiver. The thought that China, the latter-day culprit, is talking about becoming carbon neutral by 2050 is encouraging because they always over-deliver but, where is the recalibration in the west? This is happening now, daily, and on the telly in real time.

The worst-case-scenario is that we are already completely fucked and facing a weather-related geographic and agricultural disaster which we will struggle to contain. The best case is that, well storms and teacups. These things happen an, y'know, citizen journalism.

Is everyone waiting for COP26?

Fair bit of dramatic license taken here but the scientific outlook isn't incorrect.

And that was in 2014 I can only imagine how much worse it's going to be whilst nation states convene every few years to agree that something must be done whilst exerting little pressure on the transnational corporations that are responsible for most of the pollutants in the atmosphere.

One thing I've learnt over the years is to avoid Climate doomerism it's just as bad as Climate denialism.

That's a bit like deciding to ignore trains whilst standing on the railway track...

No it's not indulging in despair and throwing your hands up in the air going woe is me.

I just wonder what we have in our collective quiver. The thought that China, the latter-day culprit, is talking about becoming carbon neutral by 2050 is encouraging because they always over-deliver but, where is the recalibration in the west? This is happening now, daily, and on the telly in real time.

We've said we will go Net Zero by 2050 as have other governments.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:35 pm We've said we will go Net Zero by 2050 as have other governments.

The point is now that that simply isn't enough. We are moving quickly in to the twin realms of damage limitation and of every-little-helps. Much has been made of Allegra Stratton advising the public not to rinse crockery before using a dishwasher but, in a sense, she has a point; six billion modest acts would and will deliver change. They will also prompt further positive actions which will soon begin to play out at the ballot box.

Trying to do your bit in the face of incalculable odds is not doomerism. It's just common sense.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:48 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:35 pm We've said we will go Net Zero by 2050 as have other governments.

The point is now that that simply isn't enough. We are moving quickly in to the twin realms of damage limitation and of every-little-helps. Much has been made of Allegra Stratton advising the public not to rinse crockery before using a dishwasher but, in a sense, she has a point; six billion modest acts would and will deliver change. They will also prompt further positive actions which will soon begin to play out at the ballot box.

Trying to do your bit in the face of incalculable odds is not doomerism. It's just common sense.

No it isn't Net Zero is something to aim for here's a long read about the pros and cons about Net Zero.

https://www.businessgreen.com/blog-post ... e-net-zero

For much of the past two years the global push to deliver net zero emissions has enjoyed a remarkable golden run. National and state governments have rushed to announce long term net zero emissions goals, to the point where around two thirds of global GDP is now covered by some form of target. Businesses and investors have followed suit, with over 2,100 of the world's largest corporates having set net zero goals under the UN-backed Race to Zero campaign while asset managers and owners worth trillions of dollars have pledged to deliver net zero emission portfolios by mid-century at the latest.

These various goals have helped trigger billions of dollars of investment in low carbon infrastructure and R&D, as well as an entire new ecosystem of campaigners, academics, regulators, investors, politicians, and business executives who are working round the clock to translate long-term net zero ambitions into credible near term decarbonisation strategies. While still daunted by the epic and tragic scale of the climate crisis, this community has been buoyed by the way in which their work has already helped deliver both plummeting clean technology costs and a decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions and global GDP.

I'm happy to engage but the odd comma, stop, capital or two would help me out. I genuinely can't figure out what you're trying to say.

What I'm trying to say is this. Here's a piece about Net Zero that explores the pros and cons about Net Zero.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:43 pm I'm happy to engage but the odd comma, stop, capital or two would help me out. I genuinely can't figure out what you're trying to say.

Am I the only person here who has no difficulty understanding TWA? It's really not that difficult - well, for me anyway.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:27 pm That's a bit like deciding to ignore trains whilst standing on the railway track...

Something people actually do, especially when a certain ex-GNR/LNER engine appears on the metals.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:06 pm What I'm trying to say is this. Here's a piece about Net Zero that explores the pros and cons about Net Zero.

Right, these are really good points. We can add to that the fact that the pace of change, particularly with vehicle technology, is out-stripping anything that was thought possible in the mainstream as recently as around 2005/06. I heard Al Gore early this morning suggesting that lecky cars will be cheaper than their petrol-fuelled counterparts within the the next three years or so. If the clever lads with their batteries continue to do their stuff, then the major challenge of land freight shipments might also be resolved.

Meantime, we need to be dealing with this error of timing. While dutifully preparing for the future, the present has just leapt centre-stage, swept the house downstream and taken granny with it.

Just as all economies need to find some way of rectifying the post-Covid finances, there is a shit ton of flood defence and infrastructure - physical, social, and digital - to be put in place to cope with local disasters and the likely influx of refugees which will be the inevitable upshot of ecological and climate collapse.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:21 pm

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:43 pm I'm happy to engage but the odd comma, stop, capital or two would help me out. I genuinely can't figure out what you're trying to say.

Am I the only person here who has no difficulty understanding TWA? It's really not that difficult - well, for me anyway.

I don't want to go off, half-cocked, on a misunderstanding. Particularly one which can be avoided with a polite and reasonable request for clarification.

I must just have good error-correction then because it seemed perfectly clear to me, but hey-ho.

Are battery-powered cars the best solution though? There was a very good poster on these matters and more on another forum I read: unfortunately I got banned for a year...

One thing I saw/heard on Monday for the first time in the UK (I've seen them in Paris) was an electric moped.

I don't think the current crop of battery cars really represents a way forward. Too expensive, too tied to traditional designs for cars, not really solving any problem but power supply.

But they are halo products. Teslas and Audi e-trons are rich people's toys. The future is probably better represented by something like the Honda effort, but even that's tied into the traditional marketplace.

I have more than a passing interest in an electric car as I'm thinking of replacing the current car with a Renault Zoe when I retire. If I need to make a long journey I can hire an ICE car.

Colleague at work has a 7kW charger for his Zoe: I hear people saying "but the grid can't cope with all these cars charging at once", forgetting that there'll be an element of, for want of better wording, statistical multiplexing - as in they won't all be on at the same time.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:58 pm I have more than a passing interest in an electric car as I'm thinking of replacing the current car with a Renault Zoe when I retire. If I need to make a long journey I can hire an ICE car.

Colleague at work has a 7kW charger for his Zoe: I hear people saying "but the grid can't cope with all these cars charging at once", forgetting that there'll be an element of, for want of better wording, statistical multiplexing - as in they won't all be on at the same time.

#1 son in in the Civil Service working on preparation for the switch to electric.
They think they have the electric capacity covered.
Bigger challenges lie in charging for locations without off-street parking.

I suspect that the misunderstanding in the media is due to pissed hacks with no points in technology and still thinking in terms of cup finals and cups of tea.

The price issue of electric cars has basically been covered and, yes, that price is tumbling. But, as a manufacturing exercise, there is no doubting that they consume a notable amount of energy. Nonetheless, as renewable sources surge, much of that consumption can be mitigated and at a cost which is not uncompetitive in a market with wafer thin margins.

My own usage, both domestically and in the business (the bits I can control), is now all from renewables and the cost differential is now about seven percent, rather than the 20% premium it was a couple of years ago.

Just about all of our mileage is now public transport or on the scooter - about 3.5 liters per 100km. Often in the evening, we get a by-the-minute electric moped to our destination, have a pint or two, and then travel home with the bus which, more often than not, is electrically powered, too. As far as longer distances are concerned, I can't remember the last time we used the car. We always travel by rail which is eminently more comfortable anyway.

This is not a holier than thou rant. Rather, it is trying to demonstrate that, once you get on this bus, it is relatively easy to stay aboard, and to try to drive it a little further. This all began when Santa Greta started grinding on about eating meat and we had a bit of a lightbulb moment. I mentioned that here at the time and we are largely true to that original intention - apart from the Tomme de Savoie and last evening's smattering of Italian cold cuts, obvs.

It might be all for nought but hey, buzzing around on an electric scooter, lording it in first class on the deutsche Bahn while munching curried tofu sarnies is no great hardship.