Reduction of fossil-fuel emissions: what's the point?

political analyst

Persons and organisations that claim to be authorities on climate change (and this is a general comment on my part!) claim that fossil-fuel emissions cause the global rise in temperature and that these emissions, therefore, lead to the reduction of the ice masses at both the Arctic and the Antarctic and, therefore, lead to a rise in sea levels.

Another effect of the reduction in ice-mass in, for example, the Antarctic is the increasing likelihood of the extinction of the emperor penguins. This report was on ITV News last week - and there's more of that coverage on ITV News's YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRA9Sqi0KRA

Has it been determined exactly how much the emissions contribute to climate change?

If the emissions are contributing to the change as much as they're claimed to be, then what's the point of reducing the emissions?

If we stopped the emissions completely then global civilisation would collapse and then we'd be back to medieval times. Besides, stopping the emissions won't rebuild the ice masses in both the Arctic and the Antarctic and, therefore, won't make any difference to penguins. What's done is done. There has to be a way to protect the penguins without endangering humans' ability to have a functioning economy.

PS: The climate change forum is dormant and, given the importance of the subject, it deserves as big an audience as can be reached.

ancapailldorcha

Not sure I understand. It's bad that the penguins are under threat but also we shouldn't do anything at all to reduce the emissions which drive climate change which in turn destroys the penguins' habitat.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123549598#Comment_123549598

If you'd read my OP, you'd know that I said that stopping the emissions would make no difference to the penguins.

If the emissions were contributing to climate change to the extent that they're claimed to contribute to it then reducing it would make no difference because the emissions that are still taking place would still be causing harm to the environment.

To say that reducing emissions would make a difference is like saying that the firing of ten nuclear warheads is not as bad as the firing of a hundred nuclear warheads.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550447#Comment_123550447

You're wrong. Tackling emissions would make the world of difference.

The rest of this makes even less sense. Reducing emissions means less climate change. It's not complicated.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550473#Comment_123550473

If that was true then the emissions that would still be happening would still cause harm. You've not offered evidence to prove I'm wrong.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550518#Comment_123550518

The onus to provide evidence is on you. You began by claiming that reducing emissions won't change a thing.

Prove it.

Quantum Erasure

https://theconversation.com/overshooting-1-5-c-even-temporary-warming-above-globally-agreed-temperature-limit-could-have-permanent-consequences-255523

Earth’s surface temperature has been 1.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial average for 21 of the last 22 months.

If we've already breached the 1.5 target, there's no way we're not heading for 2° C above pre industrial levels. We'll have to at least double the carbon tax...

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550535#Comment_123550535

It hasn't been proven that emissions have contributed to climate change as much as they're claimed to have contributed.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550562#Comment_123550562

So you're just spewing the usual denier nonsense.

eightieschewbaccy

So basically this thread really has more to do with denialism than genuine concern…

NIMAN

Simple fact is that mankind has no interest in solving the climate issue.

There is a drive to make us consume more, buy more, spend more, own more. A lot of it cheap plastic crap that has to be shipped across the world.

Then there are the government's, who love to tell us that our economy is going to increase by 6% next year, and this is amazingly good news. We should all rejoice that we are expanding rapidly, as it'll bring in more money and jobs. But for economies to grow, it is not good for climate change. It follows that growth will make the effect worse.

Airports are expanding, people are always going to want to fly, holiday in foreign countries, heat their homes, etc.

To reverse the effects of climate change, society would need to regress. And that's not going to happen.

Its all about money at the end of the day. Incomes, taxes, share prices etc. If govs were serious, they could take steps to limit the damage. What about everyone getting 1 flight per year. Want more? Well you are going to have to pay massive charges. What about limiting size of car engine? Everyone is allowed a 1.2l car max. Want a 6litre one, then you are going to have to pay big time. Or even better, ban them completely.

There are serious decisions that have to be made, and us humans don't want them made.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550591#Comment_123550591

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551525#Comment_123551525

"Not true" and "not proven" are not the same thing.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551593#Comment_123551593

The world has had industrialisation since 1760 and two world wars and many other wars (the environmental impact of those are obvious) but the sky hasn't fallen.

NIMAN

I agree, I don't think the current raising of temperatures will see an end to mankind.

It will make it harder to live on planet earth and some people's lives will be badly affected, but life will go on, population will continue to increase.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550518#Comment_123550518

You've not offered evidence to prove I'm wrong.

You have offered none to prove you are right.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551634#Comment_123551634

People who live normal lives are generally being accused of causing adverse change to the climate. The onus is on the accuser to prove the accusation.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551655#Comment_123551655

What the hell does that even mean?

You’re the one claiming things in here, back it up. If you’re asserting without evidence, it can be dismissed just as easy.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551655#Comment_123551655

You started this thread to propagate denier drivel. The onus is on you and nobody else to provide evidence.

Whenever you're ready...

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550447#Comment_123550447

To say that reducing emissions would make a difference is like saying that the firing of ten nuclear warheads is not as bad as the firing of a hundred nuclear warheads.

Firing 10 nuclear warheads very definitely is not as bad as firing 100. Your analogy is completely destroying your own point.

osarusan

To say that reducing emissions would make a difference is like saying that the firing of ten nuclear warheads is not as bad as the firing of a hundred nuclear warheads.

This has to be one of the daftest things I've ever read on boards, and that's saying something.

prunudo

The climate changes and no amount of tax will change that. We are told we must all do our bit, yet countries like China, India and Asia in general plough on with their industrialisation with little care for the environment. We see warzones around the world but particularly Ukraine and middle east where fossil fuels are used propel tanks and rockets, the latter who's components will never be able to be recycled or reused (same for drones). Let alone vast destruction and the inevitable reconstruction, with vast amounts of carbon being needed to rebuild.

The whole net zero, climate emergency is a giant con, to tax the gullible and transfer wealth to the elites. They want us to believe cows are the problem and decimate the agri industry, just so they can swoop in and partake in a land grab.

That said, I hate litter, I hate waste, and I think some of us see air travel almost as a bus service, so there is definitely a moral question we must ask ourselves. But when the rest of the world don't give a ****, the little wins we make seem pointless.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123552152#Comment_123552152

The popular denier tax and apathy tropes yet again without a shred of evidence.

I've no idea why people voluntarily promote corporate slop like this. Corporations are by far the largest emitters and the second they might lose a penny, there's always people who spout stuff like this.

The performative concern about the economy is funny as well when we saw the right promote Brexit and Trump so fervently.

paulbok

Even parking up climate change for a minute, why would anyone not want to see a reduction in emissions, leading to cleaner air, the very thing that everyone on the planet breathes in every few seconds?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123552249#Comment_123552249

It requires change on behalf of ordinary people which is fair enough but it will also cost large corporations time and money and that's an absolutely no-no for conservatives.

Mr. teddywinkles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123552262#Comment_123552262

It requires "drastic" change. Thats the problem

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123552152#Comment_123552152

Pretty strange that the elites are the ones who heavily fund climate change denialism so . The Koch Brothers and Exxon Mobile have heavily funded denial. But apparently they're working for the little guy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

cdeb

I think a problem is the almost total lack of real education on what's needed at a personal level. (And as others have said, that's almost certainly because we don't want to solve the issue - but we really do)

So we hand the problem off to governments, who use erroneous statistics which don't include air travel and which only include carbon generated in the country - a stupidly misleading stat which leads the Dáil to discuss the idea of a cull of the national herd to reduce our emissions, and ignore the fact we'd have to replace our beef with much more damaging beef from Brazil.

And there's no concept of personal responsibility, arising from an almost complete lack of knowledge of the basics of carbon reduction. So we know we should be looking at reducing western footprints to 4 tonnes per year (and reducing further in coming decades), but over on the motors forum people will passionately argue their right to buy a new X5 or LandRover (which generates around 20-25 tonnes of carbon before it leaves the showroom). And in the immigration thread, people will similarly passionately argue in favour of tens of thousands of Indians/Chinese/Brazilians coming here, despite the fact that they'll typically fly home once a year at a carbon cost of around 3 tonnes per person (and the same goes for Irish in Australia/the US)

Blaming India and China is problematic - yes, they're the fastest-increasing national sources of carbon, but per capita they're way below us. Do we have a right to tell them they can't live as we do just because there's more of them?

I think Tim Berners-Lee's How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything should be compulsory reading in schools. And there's plenty on this thread who could benefit from a read too.

Ultimately the problem is a couple of billion people need to act, so while one person won't make any difference whatsoever (so why bother?), that one person does need to be part of the bigger picture. But we're not very good at thinking like that. We're very selfish when it comes down to it.

I'd also challenge osarusan's claim of the daftest thing he's read on the forum by noting, just a couple of posts above, the comment that "If the emissions are contributing to the change as much as they're claimed to be, then what's the point of reducing the emissions?" I actually can't get inside the mind that would think that's a cogent point.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123552249#Comment_123552249

You might want to define “emissions”?
e.g. diesel cars produced less CO2, but more toxins. Most of the emissions focus is on CO2.

But I take the overall point about cleaner energy sources like renewables, and nuclear.

There’s an argument that Ireland should restart oil and gas exploration so that Europe is less reliant on places like the Middle East, North Africa and Azerbaijan. Or Russia for that matter, whose oil is still being imported into the EU.

Water John

Maybe rather than going after the macro problem, people looked at acting local. Better air quality for their family. so what's involved; improve insulation in house, convert to heat pump, install solar panels, use and EV and public transport. That's a short list of what a family can do. There are good grants for some of the above, it's accessing the capital is the main problem for a family. Then, it may be more about prioritising those changes over other spend for some. I don't see it as an onerous list.

Rocket_GD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123556054#Comment_123556054

I don't see it as an onerous list.

It's not an onerous list but an expensive one, even with grants you're looking at over 50k there.

paulbok

Anything coming out of an exhaust or chimney being emissions for this.

We're not going to to eliminate them completely in my lifetime, but anything that reduces them, or at least moves them out of population centers can only be a good thing.

I agree with you 100% on production of our own oil and especially gas. Even if we were to magically hit the government reduction targets in the coming years ( currently coming in way short) we still need a supply of gas in particular to make up shortfalls in renewables. Right this minute being a good example, looking out the window, there is hardly a breeze about and it's heavily overcast for solar.

Why not produce our own, insulating the country from supply shocks and use any revenue from it to fund more green initiatives?

Has to be less polluting as well than shipping over from Canada etc.