Climate Change

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, Picard said:

What is the reason?

It wasn’t only the Greens who suffered. Emmanuel Macron, the leader of the country where the Paris agreement on climate change was struck, was humiliated. His centrist Renew group had seen its MEPs decline by 23 seats. Its overall share in parliament had fallen from 15 per cent to 11 per cent. In France, his drubbing at the hands of the hard-Right Marine Le Pen, who has backed farmers in their fight against EU climate rules, saw his party fall into third place as the hard-right took pole position.

Renew and the Greens both champion liberal and climate conscious values that have increasingly fallen out of favour with the electorate.

Mrs von der Leyen’s centre-Right European People’s Party (EPP) was the largest party in the EU parliament once the votes were counted. Pawel Zerka, of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank, said: “The EPP is a silent winner, maintaining its seats and remaining the largest political group.”

The EPP turned against net zero as it became a European election battleground. It moved to water down new biodiversity laws and strict protections for the wolf. It has vowed to oppose an EU ban on petrol engines in cars. Spooked by the farmers’ protests across Europe, the EPP echoed their arguments that green rules were too burdensome and expensive during the cost of living crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

As tractors rolled into Brussels earlier this year, Mrs von der Leyen ditched planned EU legislation to cut agricultural emissions and reduce pesticide use. Bart Dickens, a Belgian beef farmer, said: “The people see what is happening,” before decrying the Left as being about nothing more than “flower power”. “It still makes me angry sometimes,” he added.

It was a significant U-turn for a woman who had made the EU net zero goal of 2050 a flagship policy.

[badgerx16]

The above post is courtesy of the Daily Telegraph.

 

( Far too many words and coherent sentences for it to be a GM original . )

Edited 11 June, 2024 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

Global warming is broken again. Just had to put a fleece on. It's June FFS.

[sadoldgit]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/greece-athens-closes-acropolis-and-schools-as-heatwave-strikes-13151940

[Weston Super Saint]

Sure, it's hot 2000 miles away.

Fucking freezing where I live.

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sure, it's hot 2000 miles away.

Fucking freezing where I live.

Hence “climate change”

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Hence “climate change”

I think you missed the bit about global warming. That's different to climate change.

[Dark Munster]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I think you missed the bit about global warming. That's different to climate change.

Newsflash: The globe is warming. At a catastrophic rate.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far

Climate by the numbers

Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 2.12 degrees F (1.18 degrees C) above the 20th century — the highest global temperature among all years in NOAA’s 1850-2023 climate record. It also beats the next warmest year, 2016, by a record-setting margin of 0.27 of a degree F (0.15 of a degree C).

The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).

Looking ahead, there is a one-in-three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023, and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

Newsflash: The globe is warming. At a catastrophic rate.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far

Climate by the numbers

Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 2.12 degrees F (1.18 degrees C) above the 20th century — the highest global temperature among all years in NOAA’s 1850-2023 climate record. It also beats the next warmest year, 2016, by a record-setting margin of 0.27 of a degree F (0.15 of a degree C).

The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).

Looking ahead, there is a one-in-three chance that 2024 will be warmer than 2023, and a 99% chance that 2024 will rank among the top five warmest years.

Not in my street.

Fucking freezing - no newsflash needed.

[The Kraken]

46 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not in my street.

Fucking freezing - no newsflash needed.

The heating has gone on in this house, it dropped below 17 degrees. It’s mid June ffs. The heating has been off since the end of March.

[whelk]

Not exactly freakish 

Coolest UK summer since 2015 https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/cdd7pzdr22jo

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Isn’t it just called ‘weather’ ?

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Not exactly freakish 

Coolest UK summer since 2015 https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/cdd7pzdr22jo

Hardly surprising, although last year was hardly any better. We just never had a solid week of hot, touching thirty, sunshine that we usually get one off a year. I’ve seen nothing resembling a proper thunderstorm either.

[sadoldgit]

We were in Valencia at this time seven years ago. It was a beautiful city. Not so much today. For those who still think that this is just “weather,” maybe think again? At what point will the penny finally drop? 

Earlier this week the BBC broadcast interviews with several people complaining that their view was going to be spoiled by new electric pylons that are required to bring us more renewable energy. It is the cheapest and most effective way to move this energy around but it will spoil a view or be an eyesore at the bottom of a garden.
 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/mediterranean-sea-temperature-highest-ever-b2381942.html

Edited 1 November, 2024 by sadoldgit

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

We were in Valencia at this time seven years ago. It was a beautiful city. Not so much today. For those who still think that this is just “weather,” maybe think again? At what point will the penny finally drop? 

🤡🤡

 

 

 

 

[aintforever]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98eylqeg06o

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

While scientists are reluctant to say any single extreme event was caused by climate change, researchers have been quick to point out the role that rising temperatures have had in making the Spanish floods worse.

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events.

“With every fraction of a degree of fossil fuel warming, the atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to heavier bursts of rainfall.”

Weather researchers say the likely main cause of the intense rainfall was a natural weather event that hits Spain in Autumn and Winter.

Called a "gota fría” or cold drop, it sees cold air descend on the warmer waters of the Mediterranean Sea, which has been experiencing extremely hot conditions over the past couple of years.

The hot moist air on the surface of the sea then rises quickly, leading to tall, towering clouds that are blown ashore and deposit large amounts of rain.

Researchers say that climate change directly impacted the amount of rain that these clouds carried, pushing it up by 7% for every 1C degree of warming.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

🤡🤡

 

 

 

 

The river was diverted away from the city after the flood in 1957.

🤡🤡🤡

[Lord Duckhunter]

🤡🤡

Course there’s friggin climate change, the climates been changing for millions of years. If it didn’t, soft arses like you would be bemoaning that. 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

🤡🤡

Course there’s friggin climate change, the climates been changing for millions of years. If it didn’t, soft arses like you would be bemoaning that. 

At what point are soft arses like you going to realise that man’s over use of fossil fuels is accelerating the speed at which our climate is changing?

🤡🤡🤡 

[trousers]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

At what point are soft arses like you going to realise that man’s over use of fossil fuels is accelerating the speed at which our climate is changing?

🤡🤡🤡 

How do we know that's not the reason God put us on this planet in the first place...? 

[The Kraken]

44 minutes ago, trousers said:

How do we know that's not the reason God put us on this planet in the first place...? 

Oi, @Matthew Le God. Get in here ffs.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

How do we know that's not the reason God put us on this planet in the first place...? 

Cripes! Trousers is a pawn of the Reptilians who want to change Earth's environment to what they prefer to live in!

31 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Oi, @Matthew Le God. Get in here ffs.

Sorry Kraken. Couldn't get MLG, so had to settle for MLT for the above.

[hypochondriac]

If man made climate change is a thing and g generally a negative thing, there's not really any prospect of a tiny country producing insignificant amounts of greenhouse gases like us persuading massive countries who do make a difference from doing enough about it at a quick enough rate to change anything substantial. Far better to pour a load of money in to allow us to mitigate and live with the effects of a changing planet. No reason at all that we can't utilise technology to assist us with this endeavour. Going back to the pre industrial age or trying to force people not to drive, not eat meat etc is not really a viable or practical solution and all it does is build resentment amongst the population in countries like ours when we know in our hearts it doesn't move the needle in The slightest and simply hobbled us and our quality of life whilst other nations can pretty much do what they like unimpeded by comparison. 

Edited 2 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If man made climate change is a thing and g generally a negative thing, there's not really any prospect of a tiny country producing insignificant amounts of greenhouse gases like us persuading massive countries who do make a difference from doing enough about it at a quick enough rate to change anything substantial. Far better to pour a load of money in to allow us to mitigate and live with the effects of a changing planet. No reason at all that we can't utilise technology to assist us with this endeavour. Going back to the pre industrial age or trying to force people not to drive, not eat meat etc is not really a viable or practical solution and all it does is build resentment amongst the population in countries like ours when we know in our hearts it doesn't move the needle in The slightest and simply hobbled us and our quality of life whilst other nations can pretty much do what they like unimpeded by comparison. 

You should try looking into what tiny, insignificant China is actually doing with renewable energy and electric cars. They’re going to absolutely leave the west behind over the next couple of decades.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

You should try looking into what tiny, insignificant China is actually doing with renewable energy and electric cars. They’re going to absolutely leave the west behind over the next couple of decades.

You're suggesting I wasn't aware of what China are doing. I don't deny that they've done a bit. I wasn't talking solely about China though and note the language I used "doing enough about it at a quick enough rate to change anything substantial." You also didn't mention things ike this:

 

Edited 2 November, 2024 by hypochondriac

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

You should try looking into what tiny, insignificant China is actually doing with renewable energy and electric cars. They’re going to absolutely leave the west behind over the next couple of decades.

 

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're suggesting I wasn't aware of what China are doing. I don't deny that they've done a bit. I wasn't talking solely about China though and note the language I used "doing enough about it at a quick enough rate to change anything substantial." You also didn't mention things ike this:

 

China are not moving in a green direction in a way that improves the picture. They build more coal fired power stations a year than we build major hospitals. China's focus on this issue is to dominate the global EV car market, and BYD overtaking Tesla tells us how well they're doing.

Anything we do here, in reality, will not make a blind bit of difference.

And that's before we get started on the environmental damage caused in battery production, etc. 

[aintforever]

49 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If man made climate change is a thing and g generally a negative thing, there's not really any prospect of a tiny country producing insignificant amounts of greenhouse gases like us persuading massive countries who do make a difference from doing enough about it at a quick enough rate to change anything substantial. Far better to pour a load of money in to allow us to mitigate and live with the effects of a changing planet. No reason at all that we can't utilise technology to assist us with this endeavour. Going back to the pre industrial age or trying to force people not to drive, not eat meat etc is not really a viable or practical solution and all it does is build resentment amongst the population in countries like ours when we know in our hearts it doesn't move the needle in The slightest and simply hobbled us and our quality of life whilst other nations can pretty much do what they like unimpeded by comparison. 

It’s that way of thinking which results in the complete failure to deal with the problem. Every country on the planet can say the same thing and nothing gets done.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

And that's before we get started on the environmental damage caused in battery production, etc. 

How often do you have to replace the battery in an electric car compared to say, replacing the crude oil that powers a petrol/diesel car?

[Turkish]

18 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The river was diverted away from the city after the flood in 1957.

🤡🤡🤡

What there was a flood in 1957 before climate change became fashionable. How can this be?

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

 

China are not moving in a green direction in a way that improves the picture. They build more coal fired power stations a year than we build major hospitals. China's focus on this issue is to dominate the global EV car market, and BYD overtaking Tesla tells us how well they're doing.

Anything we do here, in reality, will not make a blind bit of difference.

And that's before we get started on the environmental damage caused in battery production, etc. 

Exactly. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

It’s that way of thinking which results in the complete failure to deal with the problem. Every country on the planet can say the same thing and nothing gets done.

Nope. Climate change is an inevitability unless we go back to the stone age. Currently we are set to massively hobble ourselves whilst other countries essentially do what they like with some small concessions. Billions and billions of pounds and restrictions on our lives for very little tangible benefit and all because it makes a few people feel good about themselves. Much better to face up to the reality which everyone will do in a few decades anyway that we have zero chance of restricting the likes of China and India to anywhere near the required amount. Accept that climate change will happen and plan accordingly looking to live alongside the newly changed climate. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

How often do you have to replace the battery in an electric car compared to say, replacing the crude oil that powers a petrol/diesel car?

Being greener than a diesel car doesn't make it green. 

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Nope. Climate change is an inevitability unless we go back to the stone age. Currently we are set to massively hobble ourselves whilst other countries essentially do what they like with some small concessions. Billions and billions of pounds and restrictions on our lives for very little tangible benefit and all because it makes a few people feel good about themselves. Much better to face up to the reality which everyone will do in a few decades anyway that we have zero chance of restricting the likes of China and India to anywhere near the required amount. Accept that climate change will happen and plan accordingly looking to live alongside the newly changed climate. 

Again, that’s the attitude which means nothing gets done, it’s the line of thought that has led us to where we are now. Individual countries worrying more about not being competitive than the state of the planet.

I agree we should prepare because climate change is going to get a lot worse now regardless of what we do but we should also do what we can to try and limit the damage, and rich countries like our should lead the way.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Again, that’s the attitude which means nothing gets done, it’s the line of thought that has led us to where we are now. Individual countries worrying more about not being competitive than the state of the planet.

I agree we should prepare because climate change is going to get a lot worse now regardless of what we do but we should also do what we can to try and limit the damage, and rich countries like our should lead the way.

 

 

Leading the way does nothing and has no significant impact other than to make us poorer and our lives more miserable and controlled. There's no evidence that leading the way as you put it has had any impact on India or China whatsoever to a degree where it would make a difference. 

Of course we should worry about being competitive, we are beyond foolish to destroy industries and then have to import everything whilst bigger countries with giant carbon footprints are doing relatively very little. 

[Lighthouse]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Being greener than a diesel car doesn't make it green. 

Still a heck of a lot better though, isn’t it. If they can crack salt water battery technology, which is being researched furiously around the world you won’t really have a leg to stand on, the ICE will just disappear.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Still a heck of a lot better though, isn’t it. If they can crack salt water battery technology, which is being researched furiously around the world you won’t really have a leg to stand on, the ICE will just disappear.

I don't think anyone was arguing that they weren't much better were they? Simply that the manner that electric cars are advertised is misleading. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

 

China are not moving in a green direction in a way that improves the picture. They build more coal fired power stations a year than we build major hospitals. China's focus on this issue is to dominate the global EV car market, and BYD overtaking Tesla tells us how well they're doing.

Anything we do here, in reality, will not make a blind bit of difference.

And that's before we get started on the environmental damage caused in battery production, etc. 

Still almost 60% of China's electricity is created by burning coal.

Seems counter productive to build electric cars then charge them by burning coal!

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Still almost 60% of China's electricity is created by burning coal.

Seems counter productive to build electric cars then charge them by burning coal!

Indeed, although the EV the production is at least as much for the global market as their domestic market. It staggers me that people think their EV is green, completely ignoring how the energy is made to produce and run the things, where the ingredients for the batteries come from, and how they're mined using fossil fuelled vehicles and machinery. That's before we get to recycling the things when they die. 

EV's are a huge con. 

[Lighthouse]

36 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think anyone was arguing that they weren't much better were they? Simply that the manner that electric cars are advertised is misleading. 

Apparently egg is, as are a fair few other people.

[egg]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

How often do you have to replace the battery in an electric car compared to say, replacing the crude oil that powers a petrol/diesel car?

That's a crude (no pun intended) approach. The relevant question is the environmental impact of a small/medium petrol car against an EV over a lifetime, say 120k miles/10 years. That should include everything from the mining and manufacturing of all the ingredients, including the heavy plant and trucks to dig, cart and ship stuff, the running, the infrastructure to operate and fuel, then break them down at the end. I'd be staggered if any EV is still on its original batteries by that point, and that the total environmental impact will be less for the EV. It's a con that wannabee green people are fooled by. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Apparently egg is, as are a fair few other people.

See my thread above. I've seen no evidence to support the 'ev is greener from creation to grave' argument. The focus is just on the bit in the middle. And that's no greener if you're running them on coal derived electricity. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

See my thread above. I've seen no evidence to support the 'ev is greener from creation to grave' argument. The focus is just on the bit in the middle. And that's no greener if you're running them on coal derived electricity. 

The argument I would make is that current battery technology makes second hand electric vehicles almost not worth owning. If you need to replace a battery every few years then I'd argue that will reduce its green credentials somewhat. 

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a crude (no pun intended) approach. The relevant question is the environmental impact of a small/medium petrol car against an EV over a lifetime, say 120k miles/10 years. That should include everything from the mining and manufacturing of all the ingredients, including the heavy plant and trucks to dig, cart and ship stuff, the running, the infrastructure to operate and fuel, then break them down at the end. I'd be staggered if any EV is still on its original batteries by that point, and that the total environmental impact will be less for the EV. It's a con that wannabee green people are fooled by. 

You say all that whilst completely ignoring how often you have to replace the petrol in your car and all the associated impacts of mining crude oil. Nobody said lithium is clean and easy to mine, that’s why we’re trying to move away from it, but it’s nowhere near as bad as petrol/diesel.

[egg]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

You say all that whilst completely ignoring how often you have to replace the petrol in your car and all the associated impacts of mining crude oil. Nobody said lithium is clean and easy to mine, that’s why we’re trying to move away from it, but it’s nowhere near as bad as petrol/diesel.

You say all that whilst completely ignoring how often you have to replace batteries over a 10 year / 120k miles ownership. An engine won't need replacing. If the green credentials of an EV from Inception to recycling were better than a clean burning small petrol engine we'd have evidence of that. 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

You say all that whilst completely ignoring how often you have to replace batteries over a 10 year / 120k miles ownership. An engine won't need replacing. If the green credentials of an EV from Inception to recycling were better than a clean burning small petrol engine we'd have evidence of that. 

Why are you making a nonsense comparison between the engine in an ICE and the battery in an EV? I might as well point out that the tyres in an ICE need replacing more often than the seat covers in an EV.

Petrol must be replaced every week. 120k miles at 50mpg average is 2,400 gallons of petrol over the life of that car.

[Weston Super Saint]

10 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Why are you making a nonsense comparison between the engine in an ICE and the battery in an EV? I might as well point out that the tyres in an ICE need replacing more often than the seat covers in an EV.

Petrol must be replaced every week. 120k miles at 50mpg average is 2,400 gallons of petrol over the life of that car.

How much coal / gas / oil is needed to charge the battery of an EV over 10 years?

[Sheaf Saint]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

How much coal / gas / oil is needed to charge the battery of an EV over 10 years?

Very little if it is produced from renewable sources.

[Weston Super Saint]

43 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Very little if it is produced from renewable sources.

Is it produced from renewable resources?

The UK still relies on over 50% of energy from non renewable...

[buctootim]

47 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is it produced from renewable resources?

The UK still relies on over 50% of energy from non renewable...

As Lighthouse says its a nonsense point. EV battery life typically exceeds the engine life of a hydrocarbons car. The US mandates a minimum life of 100,000 miles but typical usable life is nearer 200,000

How long do batteries last in electric cars? | Autocar.

 

Edited 2 November, 2024 by buctootim

[Weston Super Saint]

27 minutes ago, buctootim said:

As Lighthouse says its a nonsense point. EV battery life typically exceeds the engine life of a hydrocarbons car. The US mandates a minimum life of 100,000 miles but typical usable life is nearer 200,000

How long do batteries last in electric cars? | Autocar.

 

You seem to have completely missed the point.

I asked if any (and if so how much) fossil fuel is used to CHARGE the battery not make them.

Unless you're claiming they never need to be charged?

Also, does the capacity reduce with age (I know the battery on my phone does), so whilst it may last 200k miles, does it need to be charged more often later on its life (and maybe use more fossil fuels that created the electricity to charge them)?