Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

11213141618

Comments



  • https://twitter.com/boucherhayes/status/1201596326590525443

    i've certainly noticed a jump in the 'cattle are not a source of greenhouse gases' articles in the last few weeks.

    I’ve not seen articles saying cattle are not a source of greenhouse gasses. But there is definitely come correcting being published as information is available.

    Not all cattle farming is equal, same as not all cereal farming is equal.

    Farming animals at lower densities and in mixed swarth covers combined with trees on pasture is benifecial both in terms of environment and biodiversity.

    Even the IPCC figures show that fossil fuel usage is much more of an issue regarding emissions than animal farming.

    We seriously need Teagasc here to re-evaluate their position of commoditisation of farming, move them away from a mantra of “increase numbers and improve efficiency” to deliver units at lower costs. We need a less intense improved price improved product shift.

    The crux of the problem with information regarding animal farming is that a small well funded lobby group with ethical problems regarding animal farming are clouding the information to meet their own ends.
    All farming and land use age is about 24% of all emissions, animal farming is only a portion of that. Yet fossil fuel usage related emissions are in excess of 50% of emissions. Four or five times the problematic child than animal farming is.




  • Not directly related to climate change, but a significant event when it comes to future sustainability.


    If the human population does in fact peak and decline as predicted, then future generations may have a few more decades of resources left than was previously expected.


    If the transition towards clean energy continues, then the future looks a lot brighter with a smaller population loading the planet.


    Hopefully the COVID crisis will also force people to think that consumerism and excessive energy consumption to be seen as unacceptable.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

    The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a "jaw-dropping" impact on societies, say researchers.
    Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.
    And 23 nations - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.
    Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.




  • there's a 'yes, but' there:

    Governments put 'green recovery' on the backburner
    G20 countries aim their pandemic bailout spending at fossil fuel industries, leaving Paris climate change targets in doubt
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/15/governments-put-green-recovery-on-the-backburner




  • there's a 'yes, but' there:

    Governments put 'green recovery' on the backburner
    G20 countries aim their pandemic bailout spending at fossil fuel industries, leaving Paris climate change targets in doubt
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/15/governments-put-green-recovery-on-the-backburner
    Yes, I think the fear is that if the oil industry "turns off the taps" they won't be able to afford to turn them back on without vastly increasing the oil prices, or so they say!


    It appears to be a case of the mid-term energy requirements are more important than the long term ones.




  • A problem is that someone from the 1% uses far more resources than someone from the other end of the scale.

    So resource usage could go up more than population.


  • Advertisement


  • A problem is that someone from the 1% uses far more resources than someone from the other end of the scale.

    So resource usage could go up more than population.
    Very true, I don't know what the exact figure is but it's something like 1% of the population uses 50% (probably much more) of the resources or something like that.




  • From my reading of the current situation the populations of China, India, African and South America countries are growing rapidly and I don't care what stats are thrown up to prove otherwise. Population levels are well beyond sustainable already and inevitably will lead to war, famine and more pandemics.




  • Del.Monte wrote: »
    From my reading of the current situation the populations of China, India, African and South America countries are growing rapidly and I don't care what stats are thrown up to prove otherwise. Population levels are well beyond sustainable already and inevitably will lead to war, famine and more pandemics.
    Spreading money could solve a lot of it.

    You can extract carbon dioxide out of the air by exposing powered rock.

    Solar and storage and insulation would reduce fossil fuel demand.

    You don't need plants to grow food. It's just a question of economics and engineering.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/single-cell-protein
    ICI were successful in developing a commercial process for the production of bacterial biomass (Pruteen) from methanol at an annual rate of 54,000–70,000 tons. The process utilized a novel air-lift, pressure cycle fermenter, of 3000 m3 capacity, and was the first commercial process to produce SCP from methanol (King, 1982). The fermentation was run successfully for periods in excess of 100 days without contamination (Howells, 1982). Regrettably, the economics of the process were such that when the price of soya and fishmeal declined, Pruteen could not compete as an animal feed. Selling in bulk ceased in 1985






  • Advertisement



  • Good job I didnt expand on the post. Seems to be the weather forum is where the climate debate is raging.




  • Good job I didnt expand on the post. Seems to be the weather forum is where the climate debate is raging.
    Burping cows are old news. :)

    And by adding some new gut bacteria it might be easily reduced.

    Oddly enough you can make food out of methane. Microbes can grown on methanol from natural gas. Not sure if the overall greenhouse is less because of the increased carbon dioxide.




  • Burping cows are old news. :)

    And by adding some new gut bacteria it might be easily reduced.

    Oddly enough you can make food out of methane. Microbes can grown on methanol from natural gas. Not sure if the overall greenhouse is less because of the increased carbon dioxide.

    Oh I know its old but it needs to be repeated for some people.

    From an Irish point of view I think the whole climate/carbon response should be connected with the biodiversity crisis. Theres far too much of our agri land devoted to beef and dairy.
    Where I live its like a green desert.

    Every technical problem we create (too many cows etc) requires a further technical solution which then in most cases creates more problems. We need to go back and simplfy things.








  • People plan to fly and drive more post-Covid, climate poll shows
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/10/people-drive-fly-climate-crisis-global-poll-green-recovery-covid-pandemic

    i have two issues with the headline used - the results show people in *some* countries, and certainly far from all of them, intend to fly more.

    and i'd be curious about the use of the word 'plan', as i don't know how the question was phrased. is it that people *plan* to drive more, or *expect* to drive more?




  • People plan to fly and drive more post-Covid, climate poll shows
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/10/people-drive-fly-climate-crisis-global-poll-green-recovery-covid-pandemic

    i have two issues with the headline used - the results show people in *some* countries, and certainly far from all of them, intend to fly more.

    and i'd be curious about the use of the word 'plan', as i don't know how the question was phrased. is it that people *plan* to drive more, or *expect* to drive more?
    I suppose it's simply a fact that most people who have missed out on a foreign holiday "plan" to take one next year when things return to "normal", as for driving, I expect that the office is calling and fewer will be WFH in future as some businesses would like to return to the presenteeism they had before.




  • perhaps the numbers who plan to fly less (fewer foreign holidays) are by extension planning to drive more (more domestic holidays).

    but on your point about driving - it's not about people's expectations on whether they'll drive more compared to *during* covid, it's about whether they'll drive more compared to pre-covid.




  • perhaps the numbers who plan to fly less (fewer foreign holidays) are by extension planning to drive more (more domestic holidays).

    but on your point about driving - it's not about people's expectations on whether they'll drive more compared to *during* covid, it's about whether they'll drive more compared to pre-covid.
    I would be surprised if people expect to drive more than pre-covid, people used to habitually go for a "Sunday drive" before the last fuel crisis, far fewer do so now.
    So I find it hard to imagine they driving will increase further, except for "catch up" types of journey.




  • People plan to fly and drive more post-Covid, climate poll shows
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/10/people-drive-fly-climate-crisis-global-poll-green-recovery-covid-pandemic

    i have two issues with the headline used - the results show people in *some* countries, and certainly far from all of them, intend to fly more.

    and i'd be curious about the use of the word 'plan', as i don't know how the question was phrased. is it that people *plan* to drive more, or *expect* to drive more?

    It seems perfectly clear to me from reading the article That by 'plan' they mean exactly that; a clear intention to do something.

    This bit was great:
    The apparent disconnect between beliefs and actions raises fears that without strong political intervention, these actions could undermine efforts to meet the targets set in the Paris agreement and hopes of a green recovery from the coronavirus crisis.

    So, people who plan to drive or fly more must be prevented from doing so. Lovely.





  • I posted in this old thread by mistake.



  • Advertisement


  • the proportion of papers/studies which support anthropogenic climate change has gone from 97% to 99.9%.






  • The number of approvals for research grant applications for topics disputing AGW have fallen to 0.1%.

    Science is dead; long live climate change: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/qld-controversial-queensland-academic-court-battle-jcu/100534402





  • ah here; i'd put climate change denial on the same level, if not more absurd, than anti-vaxx sentiment.





  • I agree that the climate appears to be changing, so no 'denial'. What we would be in disagreement about is the root cause and what this is leading to and the consequences.





  • I simply post two recent observations, regarding people's attitude to taking a local interest in,and applying themselves personally to actually doing something about the problems.

    I posted in Boards technology, a simple cheap,around €50 , way to charge smart phones tabs etc, using a small solar panel and battery..

    Almost 200 people were interested enough to take a look..

    One person replied.

    I charge an electric vehicle close

    to a secondary school, and teenage students, some no doubt following Greta, regularly pass the car.

    The school has 900 pupils and over an 8 year period ,not one has shown an interest in or asked a question about EVs..





  • A smart phone costs about 50c a year to charge on a daily basis. you can't expect people to pay for a device which ramps up their cost and won't be as reliable as mains.

    also, the encapsulated carbon in a dedicated solar powered device for charging a smartphone would probably outweigh the carbon savings from using it; i.e. i suspect it'd be bad for the environment, not good.

    and you want teenage kids to react to your EV?





  • Thanks,most interesting,maybe I shouldn't care,and get my facts right.Thanks.





  • Deeply depressing that particularly in this week,no-one else reacts to the opinion held that we shouldn't use solar panels because its Cheaper to flck the switch on the wall.

    Completely missing the point,as we are discussing a power supply that can be used for decades after an initial outlay of a few euro.

    In the case in point,in the Technology discussion, for an outlay of €50. the DC supply consists of a 30 watt solar panel, feeding a 70 amp hr battery at 12 volts.

    Such a power source is a useful starting point for those interested in investigating PV cells,without getting into many thousands spent putting them on a roof.

    As to the downside of producing a panel in the first place,take it up on the PV thread,a few folk there might disagree.

    New technology,same old people?





  • Why are governments not considering the use of aircraft to spray a substance (along the lines of cloud-seeding) throughout the atmosphere in order to lower the global temperature? Would the use of dry ice work?



  • Advertisement


  • Very funny; dry ice is frozen CO2. You have to expend considerable energy to cool to around -70C to form dry ice in the first place. Unless you use 100% nuclear, solar or wind, you would be generating more CO2.



Advertisement