Australian government backs coal in defiance of IPCC climate warning

[Sean Hayden]

Well, my country accomplished everything through war, from the railroads to NASA we've got war to thank.

I guess we'll just have to wait till the planet starts 'bombing' us before we get serious.

[Svartalf]

As the dwellers of low lying islands and coastlands, and most agriculturists can tell, the 'bombing' has already started.

[Rum]

Well, my country accomplished everything through war, from the railroads to NASA we've got war to thank.

I guess we'll just have to wait till the planet starts 'bombing' us before we get serious.

Perhaps an equivalent is the space race. A significant percentage of GDP was spent by America on getting tp the moon. If the same effort went into this issue we would stand a chance.

Of course, there is the small matter of political motivation.

[Scot Dutchy]

With Trump? Not a hope.

[Hermit]

Or, you could make finding alternative energy sources a priority, spend like your life depended on it and see what happens. Think of it like war. We are at war with the clock.

It's happening in places. South Australia for instance, had no wind powered electricity generation 15 years ago. Now it provides 30% of it. Wind and solar power generation together has provided 57% of South Australia's electricity needs in the 2016/7 financial year, and that is despite our national and recently elected state governments acting as a sheet anchor for developing clean energy production plants. Other major investments, such as photovoltaic projects and batteries for base load balancing projects are also in the works, and some have already been completed. Whether there is too little of it too late on a global scale is unknown, but efforts are being made.

[Alan B]

What we need to do is to 'put something in the water' to cause a world-wide drop in fertility - human specific, of course. We don't want to affect the rest of this lonely planet's animal life. But that will not be enough.
Live births over deaths is about 60,000,000 per year.
If we had no live births and relied on the present death rate (about 45,000,000 per year), it would take over 110 years to fall back to the 1950 level (7.6 billion down to 2.5 billion).

http://www.worldometers.info/


We're FUCKED!

[JimC]

The current government will almost certainly lose the next election. Labour has its issues, but will at least head somewhat more in the direction of more renewables. In the meantime, state Labour governments are putting some effort into getting more solar and wind farms going...

[Rum]

Between a fifth and a third of all UK power will be wind generated by 2030 one reads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44926442). However looking at this chart we have a long long way to go to significantly attack carbon emissions. And the UK, as a very large economy, for the size of country it is, is a good example I would have said of the challenge globally. If the report in the OP is correct, and one has to assume it is, then nothing short of a huge effort by a great many countries is going to get a hold of this problem. I'm an optimist by nature, but this is seriously challenging that optimism.

(though the reduction in coal power is of course encouraging)

[Rum]

-duplicate-

[Alan B]

My post above is silly.
To recalculate if fertility was reduced so that live births were half the death rate - 22.5 million - per year. A reduction of 5 billion to 1950 levels would take 222 years.

[Jason]

I like the way you think Alan