How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
"In the first big study of what households, business and government may have to do to cut carbon emissions, the leading climate change research body has revised upwards by 50% the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that need to be achieved by 2050....
At the moment, the government's estimate is that a 60% cut in emissions is needed to avoid a 2C increase in temperatures by 2050. But the authors of today's study conclude that a 90% cut in emissions is needed. Their data suggests that when aviation and shipping is factored in, UK carbon emissions have not fallen at all since 1990...
However, they propose that Britain become the first country in the world to introduce a wide-ranging carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. They envisage that everyone would be able to trade emissions, with those who do not use much energy able to sell their quotas to those who use a lot. They also propose that aviation, the fastest growing emitter of carbon dioxide, be given a stringent cap on its emissions...
By 2030, railways could be entering their greatest era. Trains are expected to remain the most carbon efficient mode of transport after cycling and walking, and the authors expect the British network to grow by 25% in 25 years as people forsake short haul flights for a new generation of high-speed trains linking national and European urban centres...
Cars and cities will have to transform themselves by 2030 if the UK is to meet its carbon reduction targets. The biggest emission savings will come from the shift from oil to alternative fuels, and as cities effectively ban private transport from their centres. By 2030 the Tyndall report says there may be 13% fewer cars on the roads a wider choice of fuels including electricity, hydrogen, and biofuels...
Anticipating population growth, and a shift of people to the south, the authors expect roughly 2m new buildings in the next 45 years, but say that if high construction standards are introduced they need add little or nothing to overall CO2 emissions. But they consider some existing houses to be so energy inefficient that they may have to be demolished."
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 705 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Politicians only act out of self interest - mainly to remain in power at all costs. Therefore, realistically, no one is going to risk introducing policies that may make them unpopular, while providing a heaven-sent opportunity for political enemies to capitalise on promises to preserve the status quo; cheap flights, more motorways, and so on.
The public itself doesn't care enough - yet, so with no external electoral pressure being applied, it's fingers straight back to the snooze button.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Gridlock wrote:
Sorry if I pissed on anyone's apocalypse. That's a damn good song tho.
Mess with my doomer porn, ... Dude!
Just kiddin, I just think its funny that someone could actually type up such a study with a straight face. If I were a climatologist and not a lowly mathematician, and I'd spend thousands of hours studying something that coughed up a result like that, I think I might switch to "top ten things to do to save humanity when Antarctic melts next week."
Maybe he was funded by the oil industry in order to convince people its pointless to even think about stopping global warming. (I agree, but even I find this report extreme).
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Quote:
Just kiddin, I just think its funny that someone could actually type up such a study with a straight face.
OK. But what bit got your goat? Admittedly the 90% CR seems vv optimistic. But, carbon trade, banning private transport from city centres, a new generation of high-speed trains and domestic efficiency didn’t seem so pie in the sky to me.
Quote:
(I agree, but even I find this report extreme)
You’ve posted here 2000 times, and you find this extreme?!
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
[quote="Gridlock"]
Quote:
OK. But what bit got your goat? Admittedly the 90% CR seems vv optimistic
Just the numbers I think; the idea that anywhere would cut CO2 emissions by 90%; and the false, unstated idea that if England would just cut its emissions, China and India would follow along, and we'd avoid a temp rise by 2050.
China and India are going to bury the US emission level soon enough, Britian's won't even make it into the significant digit range after that.
Quote:
But, carbon trade, banning private transport from city centres, a new generation of high-speed trains and domestic efficiency didn’t seem so pie in the sky to me.
Nothing wrong with thiese as policy issues; I don't think they'll accomplish anything with regard to global warming. One thing you could do, is scrap the income tax entirely, and replace it with a carbon tax of equal estimated receipt value.
Quote:
Quote:
(I agree, but even I find this report extreme)
You’ve posted here 2000 times, and you find this extreme?!
Ok, maybe my brain is more fried than I thought... It got hot and I biked hard anyway. Maybe not so smart... _________________ abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
rwwff wrote:
Song goes off in my head..
You can't always get what ya wannaant
Thats the stupidest piece of GW wishcasting I've ever read.
You ain't gettin a 90% reduction
You ain't gettin a 50% reduction.
You are getting a 50% increase in CO2 output. Minimum.
That is reality.
Sucks...
You surely could get a 50% reduction by switching off all municipal coal plants in favor of nuclear. But you have countries like germany who think they can sign up for kyoto and abolish nuclear at the same time. It might work if france decided to build nuclear electric plants for exporting electricity, but really it just means Germany will increase its CO2.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Gridlock wrote:
They’ve got a way to go, but who can blame em. What do you think about China’s last visit to Washington?
Publicly bungled, on purpose, for the consumption of the masses in both countries. Privately... I can't even begin to guess the depths of the deals those two supreme CEOs, in command of trillions of dollars of economic activity put together.
Probably the most important statement was on the lines of Bush saying, "I guarantee you, that we will go to whatever lengths are required to insure that the dollars you are receiving from us will always be able to buy oil anywhere on the globe. _________________ abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Quote:
Publicly bungled, on purpose
Cringy wasn’t it. Worth a chuckle though.
Quote:
Probably the most important statement was on the lines of Bush saying, "I guarantee you, that we will go to whatever lengths are required to insure that the dollars you are receiving from us will always be able to buy oil anywhere on the globe.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: Bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster
Gridlock wrote:
Quote:
Probably the most important statement was on the lines of Bush saying, "I guarantee you, that we will go to whatever lengths are required to insure that the dollars you are receiving from us will always be able to buy oil anywhere on the globe.
How does that translate into everyday English?
Speaking the words "Euro" and "Burse" in the same sentence will be unwise for any Chinese trading partner. _________________ abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
