** The Climate Change Thread **

[roubaixtuesday]

Do you really think that significant action has not been taken on environmental matters and climate change? If so then I’m puzzled why. Lots of different actions have been taken by humanity and they have been significant for those people if not necessarily the planet, and things could currently be both worse than they are and pointing in a worse direction too. A bit of positivity is a wonderful thing, and it encourages us to (strive to) do better again.

These are very good points.

1) We've already made quote a big difference. Previous worst case scenarios are no longer feasible (see chart above). And renewable rollout is now increasing exponentially.

2) However bad things are, everything we do still improves things. The biggest impacts are at the top end, so if we're not on track, it's even more important to reduce emissions, not less.

3) Technology and engineering now mean means are *cheaper* than fossil fuels (see links above). We have an open goal to hit.

[mattheus]

It's pretty clear to me that
"It's way past the point of us stopping this*."
... is nearly always an excuse to shrug shoulders and carry on with damaging behaviours.

(This psychology is very common in other areas, so I shouldn't be surprised!)

*A statement which I am sure - like most others here - is blatantly untrue.

[Cugel]

It's disgusting that people are still allowed to injure, kill and pollute as if it were normal. But such people will continue in their horrific practices, untilt they're forced to stop

Mr gbnz, your choice of posts so far - concluding with the text above - presents an inconsistent view point.
What do you actually think? We can hardly respond to you sincerely and in good faith if your posts just flip-flop around.

No offence meant - I can only judge on what you post here.

Is this one human asking another to be wholly consistent? This is not a capability of any human I've ever known - and a good thing too as I hear that those who adopt such an ambition become, at the least, tedious martinets emitting crass certainties but, at the worst, the mass murderers of millions who refuse to adopt their creed!

Myself, I like to drift about the idea-scape in a futile attempt to avoid being captured by notions that will cause me to self-harm or harm others. Alas, "futile" is the operative word. I'm full of all sorts of nonsense!

But what of yourself? Will you claim a consistency I have yet to observe in your posts? Go on, go on, go on - you know you want to! Mind, I'll only titter and snicker at such a claim, which I know may make you huff a bit.

[mattheus]

It's disgusting that people are still allowed to injure, kill and pollute as if it were normal. But such people will continue in their horrific practices, untilt they're forced to stop

Mr gbnz, your choice of posts so far - concluding with the text above - presents an inconsistent view point.
What do you actually think? We can hardly respond to you sincerely and in good faith if your posts just flip-flop around.

No offence meant - I can only judge on what you post here.

Is this one human asking another to be wholly consistent?

Nope.

Merely asking for consistency across a mere few short posts made on this one constrained topic. That isn't much to ask.
("Wholly consistent" would indeed be unrealistic. But speaking for myself, my intentions are largely consistent. How about you Sir?)

[Cugel]

Do you really think that significant action has not been taken on environmental matters and climate change? If so then I’m puzzled why. Lots of different actions have been taken by humanity and they have been significant for those people if not necessarily the planet, and things could currently be both worse than they are and pointing in a worse direction too. A bit of positivity is a wonderful thing, and it encourages us to (strive to) do better again.

These are very good points.

1) We've already made quote a big difference. Previous worst case scenarios are no longer feasible (see chart above). And renewable rollout is now increasing exponentially.

2) However bad things are, everything we do still improves things. The biggest impacts are at the top end, so if we're not on track, it's even more important to reduce emissions, not less.

3) Technology and engineering now mean means are *cheaper* than fossil fuels (see links above). We have an open goal to hit.

A lovely Progressive dream. I did harbour something like it myself, for years.

But shirly shum mishsteak as it's become blatantly obvious that (a) there is no "we" with a single unified, coherent and consistent intent to do as all of us humans ought; and (b) technology and engineering are the root cause of just about every modern ultra-damage that you can name. And will continue to be so, with knobs on.

We could add a (c) mentioning that the various schemes defining "doing what humans ought to do" have all ended with disastrous and lethal consequences for millions and millions of humans failing the high (or low) bar.

(Please don't mention the success of medicine and other causes of the vast human population expansion and their comforts/conveniences as the final outcome of those are only just manifesting and rather undermining the optimistic cries of wonder at their success).

Still, its worth a try. I'll add a windmill to the solar, batteries et al if one that works appears. It'll make no difference whatsoever to our species' rush to the oblivion-cliff, though. Still, better to feel optimistic rather than pessimistic, even if the acts one takes to bolster the optimism actually makes things even worse.

[Cugel]

("Wholly consistent" would indeed be unrealistic. But speaking for myself, my intentions are largely consistent. How about you Sir?)

I like to change my mind every ten minutes, although things in there often say NO! In fact, there is no "I" to adopt such intentions but rather a large-dark churn of ..... something ..... that drives me about. I'd like to think "I" was in charge but events over 76.75 years so far have indicated some difficulties, adding up to "impossible".

But perhaps "you" have somehow captured your rational inner homunculus and tamed it to your wonts and needs? On the other hand, that begs the question: what captured and tamed the homunculus, how and why!?

[Mike Sales]

I would like to be able to hope that we can mitigate the worst effects already in train, by taking urgent action.
The imminent COP in Brazil is a chance to turn round our trajectory which is heading rapidly the wrong way.
The indications are not hopeful, but point towards continuing as before, especially in the absence of the orange one.
I too am glad that I will not be around to see the mess.

[Carlton green]

I would like to be able to hope that we can mitigate the worst effects already in train, by taking urgent action.
The imminent COP in Brazil is a chance to turn round our trajectory which is heading rapidly the wrong way.
The indications are not hopeful, but point towards continuing as before, especially in the absence of the orange one.
I too am glad that I will not be around to see the mess.

The Orange one does indeed make a negative difference but the tide is against him, and many people in his own land continue to do their best to make better choices and affect the future in more positive ways. Outside of the USA Europe is increasingly ‘green’ and China is well on the way to being fossil fuel powered free (ie. Powered without CO2 emissions). The world’s bigger worries are what the third world nations will do, but if renewables and energy storage systems are cheaper than fossil fuels then the answer’s not too hard to imagine.

Technology and Economics will drive all this forward; I didn’t anticipate seeing this day (we’re very near) but renewables (+ energy storage solutions) will become cheaper than fossil fuels and it’s only a matter of time until we again leave oil in the ground as a semi-useless substance. Who’d have realistically thought such change possible? It only seems like yesterday (though it was about five decades ago) that I went for a tour around my local coal powered power station and now my nearest generators are solar panels and wind turbines.

[roubaixtuesday]

I would like to be able to hope that we can mitigate the worst effects already in train, by taking urgent action.
The imminent COP in Brazil is a chance to turn round our trajectory which is heading rapidly the wrong way.
The indications are not hopeful, but point towards continuing as before, especially in the absence of the orange one.
I too am glad that I will not be around to see the mess.

The Orange one does indeed make a negative difference but the tide is against him with many people in his own land doing their best to make better choices and affect the future in more positive ways. Outside of the USA Europe is increasingly ‘green’ and China is well on the way to being fossil fuel powered free (ie. Powered without CO2 emissions). The world’s bigger worries are what the third world nations will do, but if renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels then the answers not hard to imagine.

Technology and Economics will drive all this forward; I didn’t anticipate seeing this day (we’re very near) but renewables will become cheaper than fossil fuels and it’s only a matter of time until we again leave oil in the ground as a semi-useless substance. Who’d have thought it?

Yes - from the linked presentation above:

Developing countries are already peaking or on the road to peak

And renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels (cheaper even than the marginal cost of fossil fuels!)

[Carlton green]

Wright’s Law.

Wright found that every time total aircraft production doubled, the required labor time for a new aircraft fell by 20%. This has become known as "Wright's law". Studies in other industries have yielded different percentage values (ranging from only a couple of percent up to 30%), but in most cases, the value in each industry was a constant percentage and did not vary at different scales of operation. The learning curve model posits that for each doubling of the total quantity of items produced, costs decrease by a fixed proportion. Generally, the production of any good or service shows the learning curve or experience curve effect. Each time cumulative volume doubles, value-added costs (including administration, marketing, distribution, and manufacturing) fall by a constant percentage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experienc ... rve_effect

I do wonder where we are on that plot of costs for products like BEV’s, solar panels / domestic installations, and domestic electricity storage. Then we have commercial costs and profit taking that make production costs no more than a sideline (forget what it costs to make, what will the customer stand?) … as has ever been thus.

Through what range of values does Wright’s Law apply? Ultimately Wright’s Law must have limits or when sufficient of an item were made then it’s manufacturing cost would become zero, which is something that just doesn’t happen. ‘Educated opinion’, from Goldman Sachs, suggests that we’re approaching the percentage limit of cost reductions, and that considering years versus cost we’re looking at an annual cost reduction of circa 8% for the next five years (‘till 2030, so a drop of about 1/3 over five years).

We are approaching the tail-end of battery price reduction and eventually both the fixed costs of materials will emerge and virtually all the manufacturing and technical efficiencies will have already been gained - things will mature. When will battery prices pan-out and at what level? My guess is circa 2035 and a 50% price reduction on where we are in 2025, so from circa $90 per KwH to circa $45 per KwH, on a $100KwH battery that’s about a $4500 reduction, less than 1/10th the new price of the car.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/a ... nt-by-2025

Are brand new electric cars going to get a lot cheaper? Possibly cheaper, drifting downwards, but (assuming European manufacturing costs) not a lot cheaper; as a percentage of vehicle cost the battery costs are now much less significant than they were, and - setting aside pressures for larger batteries to increase range - they are destined to be even less significant in the future. As per earlier graphs (*) the total cost of ownership of BEV’s has been either similar or less than that of ICE cars for circa five years and we’re now close / about there with (showroom/forecourt) price parity on new vehicles.
* page 29, RT 30 Sep 2025, 10:55am

[gbnz]

It's disgusting that people are still allowed to injure, kill and pollute as if it were normal. But such people will continue in their horrific practices, untilt they're forced to stop

Mr gbnz, your choice of posts so far - concluding with the text above - presents an inconsistent view point.
What do you actually think? We can hardly respond to you sincerely and in good faith if your posts just flip-flop around.

No offence meant - I can only judge on what you post here.

No. Absolutely consistent.

Like most here I'm not bothered about Climate Change and do believe that nothing will actually change until people are forced to change. Though personally don't particularly believe that to do something as simple as not using a motor vehicle, requires "striving" on the part of an individual. One may as well adjust ones behaviours, if it's of benefit to other species etc (Nb. Am more concerned about bumblebees than people who drive)

Which heads to my basic premise.

That it's quite astounding, how many people are "concerned" about Climate Change, to the extent of talking about it in great deal. But not to the extent of doing something as simple as changing their own behaviours. I presume everyone on this thread, must have stopped using a motor vehicle a long time ago, given so much concern has been expressed about climate change ?

It'd be hypocritical beyond belief, to express ones concern in respect to climate change, whilst refusing to bother doing something as easy as not to use a motor vehicle. Climate change is a fact and adjusting ones own behaviour doesn't particularly require much effort

[mattheus]

No. Absolutely consistent.

Like most here I'm not bothered about Climate Change

Really? And yet you say:

That it's quite astounding, how many people are

... and ...

It's disgusting that

[gbnz]

No. Absolutely consistent.

Like most here I'm not bothered about Climate Change

Really? And yet you say:

That it's quite astounding, how many people are

... and ...

It's disgusting that

Well yes, hypocrisy is a horrific practice many indulge in

So whilst I accept that climate change is a reality and making easy adjustments to ones own behaviour may mitigate ones own negative impacts; it's the hypocrisy of those who are so concerned about climate change, but not to the extent of changing their own behavioural patterns, which is irritating

And obviously I have an inherant distaste for those who use motor vehicles or create waste. Makes such distaste deeper, when hearing so many of them are concerned about climate change. It's a bit like hearing of how the obese are desperate to lsoe weight, so are buying weigth loss drugs; why don't such simply eat less ?

[Cugel]

That it's quite astounding, how many people are "concerned" about Climate Change, to the extent of talking about it in great deal. But not to the extent of doing something as simple as changing their own behaviours. I presume everyone on this thread, must have stopped using a motor vehicle a long time ago, given so much concern has been expressed about climate change ?

It'd be hypocritical beyond belief, to express ones concern in respect to climate change, whilst refusing to bother doing something as easy as not to use a motor vehicle. Climate change is a fact and adjusting ones own behaviour doesn't particularly require much effort

I suppose so ...... but you assume that there is a strong-willed rationalist somewhere inside us all that we should merely listen to and obey, to change our behaviours for the better. Alas, this is very probably an erroneous assumption generated by centuries of queer notions building to the concept of "the individual"; or, worserer, the reasoning individual.

Such beasts are as rare as dragons' teef. In fact, I've not met one ever - although I have come across plenty who adopt the pose, convincing themselves of various certainties they've actually adopted out of the usual human emotive responses rather than any immaculate logic based on Absolute Facts (another misconception). I was one-such myself for a decade or two until the various failures of my favourite assumptions could no longer be ignored.

One of my many hobbies is "introspection" being an attempt to push aside all the mental detritus to get at one's real motives for doing as one does. Alas, I can offer no examples of success, effective methods or anything else suggesting a path to self-awareness and consequent better behaviours. As a hobby it generates only a lot of mental sawdust.

The problem: we are humans with a vast and not well-understood set of responses to reality, highly limited by the features of our evolutionary history and now with behaviours largely determined by the evolution of those other metaphysical creatures that infest our brains via all sorts of cultural artefacts such as language and the various other stuff of that ilk that results, not least political ideologies and religions full of hoary old dogmas.

I sometimes claim to be a clever and responsible chap by pointing at me solar panels et al. But this too is just a pose, an act, another little bit of clowning in the mad circus tent that we all now inhabit, as outside reality gets ready to blow it all away.

[roubaixtuesday]

On the charge of hypocrisy to anyone without a net-zero lifestyle.

This is a classic catch-22. With our current society and infrastructure, having a net zero impact is very difficult and requires extreme measures.

If you do not have a net zero lifestyle, you face an accusation of hypocrisy.

If you do, you're an extreme eco hippy who wants to take us back to the stone age.

It also completely misses the point of what needs to change. Individual action cannot address climate change; what we need is a society where making the right choices is more attractive than the wrong choices, and the essential infrastructure is designed to help this, and itself have low impact.

For example. International air travel faces zero tax on fuel, zero VAT and is given subsidised retail to support airports (tax free shopping). Unsurprisingly, this makes it cheaper than lower impact alternatives. Changing this rather than demanding individuals change is what will actually make a difference.