Global Warming (again)

I'm sorry Geoff but I'm willing to bet that in less than 100 yrs your trees that you have planted will be chopped down to make room for more houses.
The population increase cannot be sustained, the world is almost completely taken over by human beings now.
We will eventually drown in our own waste, maybe thats just another form of pollution adding to global warming.
We are now incinerating waste, presumably adding to greenhouse gasses, the land fills are all full.
There is just too many of us.
No species, (as far as I know) has ever been allowed by nature to dominate the world in the way that we do, we are heading for a fall, nature will continue, but we might not.

 

10 or 20 foot rise? I've not seen those figures quoted, but whatever the rise is, it matters not a jot to the planet. It does matter a very great jot to the places where we have chosen to live.

Many, if not most cities are at or near present sea level. Average predicted rises may seem modest, but then you have to also consider storm surges and just how far inland water will come with a vertical rise of a few feet. There was a talk on the radio of putting barriers further back inland along the Humber estuary as a first step. The next step would be to move Hull and Grimsby further inland. In other words - nobody is expecting us to halt global warming, climate change or rising sea levels.

Planting a tree every time you catch a plane isn't going to balance out your carbon footprints, Mr Blair. Despite all the well meaning angst spouted by politicians, they still plan to expand airports and increase air travel which is the worst polluter and contributor of carbon dioxide. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere already NOW than there has been for the last 600,000 years and we add tonnes more every second.

They know sea levels are rising, yet they still allow new housing to be built on flood plains. Look at the massive developement planned for the Thames Gateway. Insurance companies are talking about refusing to insure houses built in such places against floods. The truth is - we can only abuse nature for so long and now its payback time.

So they tell me that I can save the planet by recycling my carrier bags. OK, I'll do that and that's all right - problem solved and we can all stop worrying about it. What a joke and the joke's on us

 

I agree, the token effort is not going to make any difference.
The bottom line is most wealthy countries (including ours) won`t give up their carbon based comforts easily.. regardless of what it`s doing to the global climate.
For example, how about giving up the car? they pump out 10 tons of carbon per year.
Some might but most wouldn`t.
I know people that can`t walk to the shop 200 yards away and are literally disabled if the car is in for repair.
The population would be up in arms if petrol prices were increased to �£20 a gallon to deter unnecessary journeys..so that won`t happen and nothing will change there
For almost every scenario, industry, imported goods, foreign holidays, etc the result is the same..

So we`re left with carrier bags and energy efficient light bulbs as the solution we can easily live with.. as Hornbeam said, what a joke.

To make a reasonable difference we literally have to step back in time..economise and be thrifty with energy and waste less.

I can`t see modern societies making such drastic changes to their lifestyles ..especially if they won`t have to take the brunt of the consequences

We`re all doomed :D

 

So Hex what can we all do to help?

Everyone need to do something starting with aeroplane fuel I think.

It really is scary.

This is when I feel like giving up my car to help or even think if it would help if i could convert my fuel I am run is diesel.

I do have a push bike maybe I should start to use it again and I would also be gaining extra exercise.As i have a mettarsol problem and cant walk as far as I would like without getting pain in my feet.

I feel very strong about global warming and so does my son.

He walks rather than drive or takes the bus.

 

"What can we all do to help" asks Scotkat.

Seems to me that in the long term we can only slow climate change down a bit - maybe...

The levels of luxury that we in the west enjoy today are the aspirations of the third world for tomorrow. They are developing rapidly with our help and their people will all want cars, fridges, mobile phones, dishwashers, holidays abroad etc etc. And why not? So, with all those extra factories using all that extra fuel for all that extra power needed to make all those extra goodies for all those extra consumers, pollution is not going to decrease. It is going to increase enormously. China is building one new fossil fuel power station every week(?)

I don't worry about global climate change any more than I ever worried about nuclear war. Because I can do nothing about it.

What I can do is to keep my own patch a bit cleaner. Landfill sites are a menace and I would rather they didn't take up any more precious space. So I recycle what I can.

Water is getting scarce and I want to carry on gardening. So I conserve rainwater as much as I can

Chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides cause enormous enviromental damage and pollution in their manufacture, useage and disposal. So I don't use them at all and garden organically which helps reduce rubbish disposal because I compost all kitchen waste and shredded paper.

I protest and oppose the expansion of Stansted Airport because the flight path for the new runway is directly over my beloved Hatfield Forest. It will be noisy and the trees are already dying.

That's it. The world can ring its hands but as someone on the news just said - "We are in a war with nature that we cannot possibly win". So be it. In the meantime, before Armageddon, I'll enjoy the hot summers and milder winters.

 

The bottom line is that whilst we can reduce our demand on enerty, and try to keep our fossil fuel consumption low (I trust none of you have things on standby) - it is the Government that will have to take action.

For example the government refuses to make its environmental code of conduct for new builds mandatory. 30% of all new builds don't even meet the current mandatory building regulations - read the environmental audit committee report of March 2006. And what about existing housing?

It says its committed to carbon neutral new builds by 2009 - but is doing nothing more than espousing it - and pushing for a step change in housing provision in the south east at the same time.

Its stuck a �£5 ARP tax on in respect of flying - but building new runways and airports. Think of the power going to be used in the new casino licences.

I look at the decisions being made and despair, its more about votes, and nothing about future - that our kids will have to live with.

 

I don`t think anyone has the answers, most governments seem to bury their heads in the sand rather than deal with it

Everyone can make a contribution but it`s just a drop in the ocean compared to the problem.
As much as i`d like to think there will be a fairy tale ending, with our track record.. i just can`t see it happening.

Getting complete agreement from every sides is highly unlikely.. when did that ever happen

Judging by how long it`s taken to get this far with all the debating about global warming (and if it was even happening), how long will it take them to decide on and implement any solution, however ineffective, on a global scale?

It doth not bode well

 

I have a few answers close all the budget airlines ,limit foreign holidays plenty of nice places in this country and with global warming we even get the warm weather, everybody get a bike, there now thats a start I will think of some others

 

It is not just the government at fault. If you really want to do something about cutting greenhouse gases then you have to cut down on the use of fossil fuel. The only way to do that is to increase the price. Now who will vote for a party that would increase fuel prices to a level that would have an appreciable effect? As a politician you would be in a no win situation because to do what is needed would make you unelectable. Too many voters are prepared to say its not our fault, other countries are worse than ours. Perhaps we are now seeing a general realisation amongst the population that it is serious and that people are perhaps prepared to pay more or do without things - thats a tone which I feel has been different about the more recent debates.
Incidentally pete i rreckon you would lose your bet. People are more aware now of what trees can offer than they were years ago. At present the trees are in area that is protected from development. Even if house building expands in that area it would be beyond the planted area. People do realise that there is a need to break up built up areas and they would form a long linear wood.Nowadays people arre much more prepared to object and if necessary take direct action if they they think things are being destroyed unjustly. They are outside a small town, they were to provide continuity for existing scattered trees in what is largely a very open area. It would be unlikely if they got chopped down before 300 years. The main threat to them is probably climate change.
By the way incinerating waste does not ADD to greenhouse gases, unless you are incinerating waste that is made from fossil fuels. If you are burning waste that is made from wood etc then you are only returning carbon that was absorbed during the lifetime of the plants that absorbed it. In the same way having a garden bonfore does not contribute to global warming anymore than rotting material in a compost heap does.

 

Hi Geoff
You`re right, it`s a no win situation.

Our modern way of life is based solely on the use of fossil fuel,which is why we have the problem in the first place.
Everything we own, use or even eat has fossil fuel involved in the production or transportation.
It will be impossible to reduce it`s use significantly without a complete rethink of modern society.

Making it more expensive is not really a good option..
Industry also revolves around fossil fuel which means every item produced will become more expensive too.
Profit margins get smaller due to higher costs and jobs could go as a result.
Unless it`s just the domestic consumers that will foot the bill? :D

Extra cash to pay for increased living costs must come from "somewhere" or your standard of living effectively falls.

A bit of a dilemma to say the least.

 

It will get more expensive and that is happening, but its because fossil fuel is getting in short supply, why even the Americans put up their oil prices and did they moan about, not half! But the price is still way below ours. As you say everything depends on fossil fuel and the way the world is organised is so unsustainable. Eventually things will change and it will be painful because basically the fossil fuel will run out, but i hope that in the meantime we don't just change fuel type ie change to make more electricity from coal cause India has got loads and will just export more.
We have to change attitudes...ie. I will do what I want cause I can afford it and stuff what effect it will have on anyone else. I stopped going to the caravan forums cause the mindset of the 4X4 drivers was so arrogant and selfish...it was so depressing. It is something that really makes we think of getting rid of the van. If I did not have a van then I would not need the car and I only use a diesel astra...lets face it for 99% of the time when we all use a car we could quite easily use a car no heavier than a Smart car. If you are honest about it, all they have to do is move 10 - 15 stone most of the time so why do we need 1 ton or more of unnecessary metal?
Systems need changing. I was reading about marketing of organic produce , now that something that should be environmental??? From the small grower??? it goes say 100 miles to the wholesaler, 200 miles from there to the supermarket centre and then say 100-200 miles to the retail shop, perhaps next door to where it was grown. Thats not including stuff being imported from places like Spain and Portugal and stuff going back the other way when it can easily be produced locally, not forgetting stuff that is flown world wide cause its fractionally cheaper to produce it somewhere else.
I think we can all contribute in our own little way. as gardeners we are in a postion to grow more of our food, if practical, we are the ones with the skills and every bit you produce is cutting down on food miles. I think this Country Markets idea is brilliant - local producers selling local produce. Its not just about making pocket money on the side or an addition to your pension, but a good environmental method of producing produce - its local and its small scale. If you do produce any produce I would give it a go. You can get a real buzz when people want to buy your stuff. Its not underpriced by any means, but they buy it becasue they want it cause its good quality...and you know how few resources you used to produce it.

 

What makes me rather pessimistic is the time scale involved. I have spent a lot of time in research laboratories working on temperature control systems. There is a basic rule, and that is that the larger the system the greater is the time delay between turning a heater on or off and the resultant change in temperature. And the greater the time delay, the greater the temperature overshoot. You can't have a system much bigger than the entire planet.

We are assuming that the current global warming is as a result of the todays carbon emissions, But there could easily be a 50 year time lag. ie that current global warming is a result of the carbon emissions of 1957, and even if we stopped all emissions today the global temperature would continue to accelerate upwards for another 50 years in response to all the emissions since 1957. During that time irreversible changes could take place, such as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets.

There is also a human time delay. Humans tend to only react when the problem is in full view. We think we can see todays problem, but are we really only seeing the problem of 1957. Todays problem may not be appreciated for another 50 years.

 

We cant go back 100 yrs, its not viable, and when you boil it down that is what is being suggested.
I'm pretty sure you are right Peter.

 

100 years ago we were burning millions of tons of coal in factories and homes. Going back 100 years isn't going to help and its not a viable option anyway.

Greenhouse gases are increasing by 2% per year despite them being constantly washed out of the atmosphere and diluted by rain which falls into the sea as acid rain. Whayt is going to be the effect of that?

Someone said that at last scientists and politicians were on the same side and talking to each other...

BUT - semantics

When a scientists talks about reducing greeenhouse gases he means exactly that.
ie achieving a real, measurable reduction of the ratio of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

When a politician talks about reducing greenhouse gases he means reducing the amount we are adding.
ie carry on adding but at a reduced rate. Then the politician claims a great victory conveniently forgetting that we are still adding and haven't reduced at all.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned - our politicos are on the fiddle too.

 

Do we ultimately get a choice?

One way or another it will eventually seem like a step back in time.
It`s an absolute certainty we will run out of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal.

Every type of alternative thus far relies at least some of those three to build, produce or run.

There`s aways nuclear power to fall back on.
True, for a while, but it also requires raw materials that are a finite resource ie: non renewable.

The clock is ticking on quite a few fronts :D

PeterS,
Interesting theory of the time delay, if that`s the case what we might be experiencing are the changes driven by the coal fired industrial era (1800-1950).
What doesn`t bear thinking about is that the oil fired era changes from 1950 onwards are waiting in the wings.

[ 03. February 2007, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Hex ]