COP 29

[Pebble]

Oil and gas are a "gift of God says the host

The big polluters are not interested, and on top of all that we now have Trump saying 'Drill Baby Drill"

is the game over, a game that we have clearly lost badly

[rjb]

Elon will get Trump back on track when the Tesla share price plummets.

[UpWrong]

I'm afraid whilst there's oil in the ground, or under the sea, someone will drill and extract it, someone will sell it and someone will burn it. Why wouldn't they?

[mjr]

I'm afraid whilst there's oil in the ground, or under the sea, someone will drill and extract it, someone will sell it and someone will burn it. Why wouldn't they?

Can we burn them in it?

[mjr]

where's a good place for detailed reporting of the cop summit? Something a bit more detailed than the few minutes you get on bbc or cnn.

[Biospace]

where's a good place for detailed reporting of the cop summit? Something a bit more detailed than the few minutes you get on bbc or cnn.

https://news.sky.com/story/cop29-the-al ... r-13248537 outlines one aspect of the agenda, see https://www.climatechangenews.com/ for detailed reporting and https://unfccc.int/event/cop-29 for documentation.

[mattheus]

where's a good place for detailed reporting of the cop summit? Something a bit more detailed than the few minutes you get on bbc or cnn.

This looks like a torrent of woke tree-hugging greenery; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cop29

[Pebble]

I hear Starmer took out 470 delegates with him to COP 29 - WHY ?

return flight of 5000 miles = 2,350,000 air miles or about 260 tons of CO2

[oaklec]

Serious question here

If the big polluters of the world are not interested in pushing towards net zero, what is the point of the UK heading down that route?

Aside from the warm glow of virtue signalling, the UK being net zero would make diddly squat difference to global warming.

When trying to make any change, isn't the normal approach to put effort into the things that will make the biggest difference?

[al_yrpal]

Exactly...

Al

[roubaixtuesday]

Serious question here

If the big polluters of the world are not interested in pushing towards net zero, what is the point of the UK heading down that route?

Aside from the warm glow of virtue signalling, the UK being net zero would make diddly squat difference to global warming.

1. Reducing reliance of fossil fuels frees us from propping up dictatorships in Russia, the Middle East (and maybe USA)

2. Fossil fuels are finite so will run out. Moving to sustainable energy sooner decreases the risk of catastrophic impacts through an inevitable coming transition.

3. Every little helps, and the worse the overall position, the more difference every change we make has, because climate impacts are highly non linear.

4. Pretty much everything (perhaps save CCS) aimed at reducing carbon impacts has other benefits too.

[oaklec]

Serious question here

If the big polluters of the world are not interested in pushing towards net zero, what is the point of the UK heading down that route?

Aside from the warm glow of virtue signalling, the UK being net zero would make diddly squat difference to global warming.

1. Reducing reliance of fossil fuels frees us from propping up dictatorships in Russia, the Middle East (and maybe USA)

2. Fossil fuels are finite so will run out. Moving to sustainable energy sooner decreases the risk of catastrophic impacts through an inevitable coming transition.

3. Every little helps, and the worse the overall position, the more difference every change we make has, because climate impacts are highly non linear.

4. Pretty much everything (perhaps save CCS) aimed at reducing carbon impacts has other benefits too.

I get the first one, reducing the UK's reliance on fossil fuels should be a good thing because it should lead to the UK needing less energy imports and make us more self sufficient. But the others, in the grand scheme of things, seem pointless unless the big polluters come along on the journey. I don't know the statistics but I'm wondering if the wars in the middle east and Ukraine are causing more pollution than the UK could ever hope to reduce.

[roubaixtuesday]

Serious question here

If the big polluters of the world are not interested in pushing towards net zero, what is the point of the UK heading down that route?

Aside from the warm glow of virtue signalling, the UK being net zero would make diddly squat difference to global warming.

1. Reducing reliance of fossil fuels frees us from propping up dictatorships in Russia, the Middle East (and maybe USA)

2. Fossil fuels are finite so will run out. Moving to sustainable energy sooner decreases the risk of catastrophic impacts through an inevitable coming transition.

3. Every little helps, and the worse the overall position, the more difference every change we make has, because climate impacts are highly non linear.

4. Pretty much everything (perhaps save CCS) aimed at reducing carbon impacts has other benefits too.

I get the first one, reducing the UK's reliance on fossil fuels should be a good thing because it should lead to the UK needing less energy imports and make us more self sufficient. But the others, in the grand scheme of things, seem pointless unless the big polluters come along on the journey. I don't know the statistics but I'm wondering if the wars in the middle east and Ukraine are causing more pollution than the UK could ever hope to reduce.

The argument "our emissions are small" is irrelevant. By such logic, *any* change is always pointless.

2) is very relevant regardless of what others do; if our society is less reliant on fossil fuels then they're well be less disruption to us as they run out

4) likewise, for instance, there are huge benefits of moving to active transport, planting trees, insulating homes, reducing meat consumption all entirely regardless of climate change.

[roubaixtuesday]

In other words..

1000010312.png (160.64 KiB) Viewed 223 times

[oaklec]

1. Reducing reliance of fossil fuels frees us from propping up dictatorships in Russia, the Middle East (and maybe USA)

2. Fossil fuels are finite so will run out. Moving to sustainable energy sooner decreases the risk of catastrophic impacts through an inevitable coming transition.

3. Every little helps, and the worse the overall position, the more difference every change we make has, because climate impacts are highly non linear.

4. Pretty much everything (perhaps save CCS) aimed at reducing carbon impacts has other benefits too.

I get the first one, reducing the UK's reliance on fossil fuels should be a good thing because it should lead to the UK needing less energy imports and make us more self sufficient. But the others, in the grand scheme of things, seem pointless unless the big polluters come along on the journey. I don't know the statistics but I'm wondering if the wars in the middle east and Ukraine are causing more pollution than the UK could ever hope to reduce.

The argument "our emissions are small" is irrelevant. By such logic, *any* change is always pointless.

2) is very relevant regardless of what others do; if our society is less reliant on fossil fuels then they're well be less disruption to us as they run out

4) likewise, for instance, there are huge benefits of moving to active transport, planting trees, insulating homes, reducing meat consumption all entirely regardless of climate change.

Not sure I can buy into that. If I were to be heavily overweight and said I'm going to eat one less chip, people would tell me that small change is not going to make any difference and that I should be making a bigger change. The same applies to climate change, don't waste effort on negligible gains unless you have already made the big gains. Put the effort into the big gains first