Global Climate Change Science News

[JimC]

They are certainly fighting a nasty rearguard action, but they are also being economically undermined by cheaper renewables...

[Brian Peacock]

Renewables are cheaper, and increasingly so, but what were not seeing is their scaling up at a rate need to meet energy demand, nor any moves by governments to reduce demand through efficiencies and changes in practice, both economic and structural.

[aufbahrung]

Too late. You know its too late to mitigate the climate catastrophe, by conventional means. Nows the time to make the sky look white everywhere. Someone should buy the gear and set up in the mountains and just pump the sulphates up there. Two dozen spots around the globe so the show will be over before the suits can shut it down. $50 million and the right sort of Jordan Peterson weather interventionist sorts on the planet. Planet is saved. Or just wait for the ship to sink, chitter-chattering like a dying out flock of budgies?

[pErvinalia]

Why not nuclear winter?

[Brian Peacock]

Advocates of SRM pitch it as a way to continue business as usual. It doesn't address any of the underlying problems associated with climate change and global heating, it just adds more on top.

[macdoc]

I why do you talk like an authority on something you clearly don't get and attribute opinions with zero supporting info.
No nuclear advocate including me thinks business as usual is a desirable path. Just more polemics from you which is not in the least helpful.
SMR is simply one, somewhat too expensive too, in the route to net zero.
There is is a solid requirement for baseload which renewables on their own do not meet and SMR does.

[Brian Peacock]

I why do you talk like an authority on something you clearly don't get and attribute opinions with zero supporting info.
No nuclear advocate including me thinks business as usual is a desirable path. Just more polemics from you which is not in the least helpful.
SMR is simply one, somewhat too expensive too, in the route to net zero.
There is is a solid requirement for baseload which renewables on their own do not meet and SMR does.

SRM is Solar Radiation Management - corporate-speak for geoengineering the atmosphere, something which necessarily would have to be undertaken on a global scale. The arguments for it essentially rely on the assumption that SRM techniques at an appropriate scale can completely mitigate the heating capacity of atmospheric GHGs such that GHG emissions are balanced and their impacts on temp negated. I'm not talking about nuclear power - though I have previously outlined the flaws underpinning assumptions about the possible use of nuclear as a viable middle-tech on the road to decarbonising the economy (too slow, too expensive, limited scalability thus unable to meet demand, etc).

I've extended an invitation to discuss these things with you many times now, but for whatever reason you're reluctant to take up that offer. I'll continue to extend those invitations though, because addressing global heating and it's consequences requires the widest and deepest level of social, political and economic engagement possible; because history, behavioural science, and our own experience shows us that broad engagement is necessary for real and positive change, and that this is impossible when we reflexively lean on dogmatism and/or making others feel small. We all have to find a way to talk about this together, to listen to each other, to really understand the drivers and the impacts, and to arrive at some form of meaningful, workable consensus.

That said, haven't you noticed that climate and sustainability are my specialist subjects mac, or that I'm actually pretty well read and well informed on these and related issues? I don't contradict you for the sake of it, I'm trying to engage you in order to have the kind of robust, good faith discussion these issues demand.

Unfortunately you're still confusing your own (small p) political disagreement with my remarks for ignorance on my part. That strikes me as more than a little counter-productive, and a little disingenuous t'boot. As much as I would love it to be otherwise, this is not something that can be settled in a handful of declarative sentences.

[aufbahrung]

Need to get organised and active. The time for the slow move change brigade is past. That latest blip on the graph pushing above 2 degrees has 6 degrees in twenty years written all over it. Think what that means? Global collapse of modern agriculture, death of most people in equatorial latitudes. Forests and animals become somewhat scarce. Need a climate fight club ready to do what it takes. The first thing you do is talk about climate fight club - remind the proles, some will act if they wont.

[macdoc]

death of most people in equatorial latitudes

In correct ....the worst changes will be towards the poles......as they already are.

[Brian Peacock]

It's a global phenomenon with global impacts, even while risks and vulnerabilities vary region-to-region and country-to-country.

c.40% of the human population live within 100km of the coast and are subject to increased risks from extreme weather events and consequential disruption to homes, livelihoods and infrastructure, coastal erosion, salinisation, and water security, and c.25% of the world's population rely on subsistence agriculture. In 2020 over half of all children globally were categorised as being at risk, or at severe risk from the impacts of climate change over the next 10 years. Increased aridification, desertification, and soil erosion to the North and East of the Himalayas is estimated to potentially impact c.3bn people. Islanders are already losing land to coastal erosion from relatively small rises in average sea level, which also impact access to fresh water and the inshore fisheries they rely on. Mountainous regions are warming faster than the global average, increasing risks from landslides, drought, water insecurity, and agricultural disruption. Increased risks to forested regions include drought, fires, windthrow, flooding and soil nutrient depletion.

In an interconnected global economy the environmental impacts of climate change in far away places can, does, and increasingly will have impacts closer to home.

[macdoc]

And do you think the hand wringing is helping?

[pErvinalia]

:marx:

[Brian Peacock]

And do you think the hand wringing is helping?

I don't think stating the plain facts outlining the scale and depth of the issues is an unduly emotional or excessive display of concern. There's always hope - but false hope and wishful thinking will obviously do more harm than good to both how we think about the drivers and consequences of global heating and how we choose to adapt to and mitigate the risks, vulnerabilities and impacts. This is why public education and participation is so important.

The point of my post was to challenge assumptions that minimised impacts to populations in equatorial regions by declaring that global heating is worse at the sparsely populated poles. You confused the most dramatic changes with the most impactful. As I said, global heating is a global phenomenon with global impacts, even while risks and vulnerabilities vary regionally and nationally.

[Brian Peacock]

:marx:

:malatesta:

[Brian Peacock]

[Fossil fuel companies] are certainly fighting a nasty rearguard action, but they are also being economically undermined by cheaper renewables...

Companies still investing too much in fossil fuels, global energy watchdog says

Fossil fuel companies are investing twice as much in oil and gas as they should if the world hopes to limit rising global temperatures to avert a climate catastrophe, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The world’s energy watchdog said that the sector still had “minimal” engagement with the global clean energy transition, and continued to contribute just 1% of clean energy investment globally...