Brilliant.

[BeElBeeBub]

And how is the U.K. going to disappear into the sea?

It isn't - you've misunderstood. I was refering to the speakers argument that the UKs CO2 emissions are too small to affect the trajectory. He said "if the UK were to fall into the sea...." as in if the UK were to just vanish the effect on global CO2 output would be negligible because it is only "2%". 

Quote from: Nick 15/07/2023, 19:36:51

Secondly, you're happy for the world to have a class system but are spitting feathers if anyone dare challenge the liberal code of everyone being afforded the same trappings and opportunities. You're clearly happy for the poorest in the world to expire, based on a flawed, money driven idea that anthropogenic CO2 is heating the earth. Rather than taking a start point which shows the 1.5 degree rise, let's go back 10,000 years which shows we are actually a couple of degrees warmer than the coldest period since then.


"oh won't somebody think of the global poor!" <clutches pearls>

Come off it. This is the fossil fuel lobby's go to.

"If you stop fossil fuels you are condemning the global poor to expire - you monster!"

Bullshit. The same people whoake this argument are also making the argument that we should be cutting aid to the poorest. Usually because "we should look after our own!". They then argue against helping "their own" by cutting aid their poorest. "But think about the poor children!" - right before they argue against free school meals because the parents should be providing food for their kids.

Who is going to suffer the most from climate change? The global poor. So anyone claiming to have their interests at heart should be looking to reduce climate change and mitigate the effects of what we can't stop.

"Do more of the thing that is causing climate change" isn't helping them.

Secondly, let's forget climate change. Let's pretend it isn't happening.

Here are the predicted population's of the 8 largest countries in 2050

India: 1,659,000,000
China: 1,364,000,000
Nigeria: 411,000,000
United States: 390,000,000
Indonesia: 322,000,000
Pakistan: 307,000,000
Brazil: 233,000,000
Bangladesh: 202,000,000

That's about half the population.

And right now here are the primary energy consumptions per person for each of those countries.

India: 7Mwh
China: 30Mwh
Nigeria: 3Mwh
United States: 74Mwh
Indonesia: 9Mwh
Pakistan: 5Mwh
Brazil: 17Mwh
Bangladesh: 3Mwh

If they all consumed energy at the same level as today's average Brits would require 


And for refence the UK is about  30Mwh

If all those countries raised their per capita consumption to UK current levels the global energy consumption would increase by an order of magnitude.

How are we going  to do that? It isn't possible, regardless of the climate issues.

And the same goes for all the other bits of consumption.

So we need to encourage the developing world, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh - you know the ones you are so protective of, *not* to increase their consumption to our leveks. Not to replicate our current patterns.

We *could* carry on as we are but say to them "look chaps, I know *I* have a gas guzzling SUV, inefficient housing and fly everywhere whilst wasting huge quantities of food and water, but would you mind awfully if you didn't? There's a good fella!"  

I don't think that will get very far 

It would be far better to say - "look at us!.we have a great standard if living and are using a sustainable amount of resources. *You* don't have to repeat our mistakes! Don't bother with going after the late 20C model, join us!"

That's why what the UK, which has pretentions of being a global leader, does *is* important.

[papasmurf]

And how is the U.K. going to disappear into the sea?

Under the weight of immigrants?

[Nick]

I'd say he strawmans what "woke" is so many of his digs and jabs are at what the right wing want you to think what "woke" is (it's not about letting kids identify as cats)

So his argument against it fails.

His point about the UK not mattering because it is "2%" of CO2 is off for 2 reasons.

1) the accounting is flawed, if the UK were to sink into the sea it's demand for overseas goods wouid sink as well. There is a good.chunk of the UK's CO2 that isn't allocated to the UK because it is being emmited by countries making stuff for us.

2) and this point links into his later points - leading by example. 

He is right about the majority of the world being poor and wanting not to be poor.

They want our lifestyle. Our prospects. Our toilets

The problem comes if everyone on the planet tries to get a western standard of living by following the samenrote and path as us. Emissions (and strains on other resources) will go through the roof.

The key is to encourage and assist them to attain our standard of living in such a way that doesn't crush resources.

We got here by burning lots of fossil fuels and wasting resources. But now we are here we have the capacity to live well on less.  By doing so we can encourage the developing world to do the same.

Sitting here on the developed world, driving gas guzzlers, watering lawns, wearing fast fashion etc and saying "no guys, you'll have to drive small electric cars, have low water consumption gardens and mend clothes so we can continue to live as we are" won't cut it.

But saying "hey guys, we live well with a lighter footprint, you can too" is more powerful and allows the developing world to get higher living standards without screwing us all

As an analogy. We in the UK were amongst the first to get widespread telecommunications. First telegraph, then later phone lines.  We have a vast sunk cost in copper wires etc the cutting edge tech if the middle 20C.  We are now slowly putting in the much better future tech - fiber optics and wireless 5G.  If you were advising a developing nation without any telecoms infrastructure would you insist they went for copper wires or suggest they leapfrogged all of that and went straight to fiber and 5G?

And how is the U.K. going to disappear into the sea?

Secondly, you're happy for the world to have a class system but are spitting feathers if anyone dare challenge the liberal code of everyone being afforded the same trappings and opportunities. You're clearly happy for the poorest in the world to expire, based on a flawed, money driven idea that anthropogenic CO2 is heating the earth. Rather than taking a start point which shows the 1.5 degree rise, let's go back 10,000 years which shows we are actually a couple of degrees warmer than the coldest period since then. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I live in a more often than not, not spot for mobile phone reception.
In some cases developing nations are leapfrogging not to fibre but to solar power and satellite communication.

Satellite connectivity need not be out of Africa's reach | ITWeb

Exactly.

And they should be building out their power grids with wind, solar and even nuclear rather than going via coal, oil and gas.

A poor indian's first car should be a small electric model not an ICE car, (better yet the public transport infrastructure should be built out so they never need a first car) and so on.

But the speakers argument is "if you are against climate change and CO2 you are for keeping these poor people poor - therefore you are a bad person!"

[papasmurf]

We are now slowly putting in the much better future tech - fiber optics and wireless 5G.  If you were advising a developing nation without any telecoms infrastructure would you insist they went for copper wires or suggest they leapfrogged all of that and went straight to fiber and 5G?

I live in a more often than not, not spot for mobile phone reception.
In some cases developing nations are leapfrogging not to fibre but to solar power and satellite communication.

Satellite connectivity need not be out of Africa's reach | ITWeb

[BeElBeeBub]

I'd say he strawmans what "woke" is so many of his digs and jabs are at what the right wing want you to think what "woke" is (it's not about letting kids identify as cats)

So his argument against it fails.

His point about the UK not mattering because it is "2%" of CO2 is off for 2 reasons.

1) the accounting is flawed, if the UK were to sink into the sea it's demand for overseas goods wouid sink as well. There is a good.chunk of the UK's CO2 that isn't allocated to the UK because it is being emmited by countries making stuff for us.

2) and this point links into his later points - leading by example.  

He is right about the majority of the world being poor and wanting not to be poor.

They want our lifestyle. Our prospects. Our toilets

The problem comes if everyone on the planet tries to get a western standard of living by following the samenrote and path as us. Emissions (and strains on other resources) will go through the roof.

The key is to encourage and assist them to attain our standard of living in such a way that doesn't crush resources.

We got here by burning lots of fossil fuels and wasting resources. But now we are here we have the capacity to live well on less.  By doing so we can encourage the developing world to do the same. 

Sitting here on the developed world, driving gas guzzlers, watering lawns, wearing fast fashion etc and saying "no guys, you'll have to drive small electric cars, have low water consumption gardens and mend clothes so we can continue to live as we are" won't cut it.

But saying "hey guys, we live well with a lighter footprint, you can too" is more powerful and allows the developing world to get higher living standards without screwing us all

As an analogy. We in the UK were amongst the first to get widespread telecommunications. First telegraph, then later phone lines.  We have a vast sunk cost in copper wires etc the cutting edge tech if the middle 20C.  We are now slowly putting in the much better future tech - fiber optics and wireless 5G.  If you were advising a developing nation without any telecoms infrastructure would you insist they went for copper wires or suggest they leapfrogged all of that and went straight to fiber and 5G?

[johnofgwent]

Saw thus a couple of months back IIRC

I agree. Absolutely epic stuff.

[Nick]

Absolutely brilliant 

https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo