|
By:
Injera
That might be true , the use of air con in summer may increase. There is some speculation (nothing certain) that UK may actually get colder winters as the planet warms, in winter UK gets a lot of energy from ocean currents bringing warm water from Gulf of Mexico. If this changes we may end up with warmer summers & colder winters. UK is going to be OK if temp rises 2C , it is rising sea levels which will be an issue. Plus what does UK do is 100m from India, Bangladesh need to move home . Would UK take a few million or guard borders. Still the real problems won't hit for a few decades. The young (under 25) have a different attitude to the subject compared to the Baby Boomers. The electoral makeup will be different in 20 years time. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Not to mention decommissioning ICEs. Presumably we’ll dump them in Africa.
|
|
By:
The electoral makeup will be different in 20 years time.
No it won't. Today's wide eyed and helpless kids will be mature people in 20 years. With mature views and not so easily fooled with experience of life do draw on, they are tomorrow's sceptics. |
|
By:
If/when sea level rise displaces populations from low-lying areas such as Bangladesh and other river deltas the question is more likely to be will Russia and Canada be prepared to house half a billion refugees? Some land loss in lowland areas should be compensated for at least partially by increased fertility of upland and temperate regions and most of those are in the North.
|
|
By:
In 20 years time we may be able to see the situation more clearly. On the other hand, the carbon dioxide/ climate change theory became fashionable 30 years ago and not much has changed since then even though we were promised Armageddon by the year 2000.
|
|
By:
^ Catalytic Converters
in 30 years people don't just stand around waiting for things to happen |
|
By:
Catalytic converters don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, they increase them.
|
|
By:
we wont be happy till every tree is cut down
each tree can remove 3 tonnes of carbon from atmosphere in its lifetime we clear the trees for palm oil and farming , both cause carcinogenic problems so we are speeding up climate to create unhealthy foods that will ultimately kill us , go figure |
|
By:
Foinavon
We were not promised Armageddon by year 2000 (nice link to the story) For years scientists been saying keep warming to under 2C (now 1.5C being talked about). Nobody predicted 30 years ago that we would reach that 2C by 2000 (I.e. Within 10 years). I find it very difficult to believe Russia will just allow tens/hundreds of millions from Bangladesh to move in. Pressure will be on UK (&Europe, USA, Canada, Oz etc. ) to help out. This is probably still many decades away & still a good chance can be prevented. |
|
By:
The countries that are at risk of losing their land mass, such as Bangladesh, are not bothered. hth.
|
|
By:
I suspect thay are a tad bothered. Might not have a lot of money to do much about it.
In the West we could spend £100bn over 20 years on flood defences for cities (& let countryside flood). Can't really do that in Bangladesh. |
|
By:
I meant I don't really see Greta and the gang either preaching in Bangladesh or asking us for money to help them(if as you say their resources are the issue).
|
|
By:
I see.
We do give overseas aid. Guess this could change in future to include flood defences. I don't really know much about Greta- I suspect the argument is that if CO2 is reduced then Bangladesh won't suffer too much & will still be fine to live there (maybe with done better defences) |
|
By:
You really need to know more about Greta if you want to find out why people think the current wave of climate change enthusiasm is being considered a scam. She's the one who wants us to go zero fossil fuels TODAY but travels on trains complaining about not getting a seat(that train wouldn't be running if it weren't for fossil fuels).
|
|
By:
Good luck to her but she is just a child.
She is has very little power , she is popular & going an incredible job of getting her message across. That is about it. Her message is based on what others are saying. So what , who cares if she says zero fossil fuels- If we reduce by 80% that will help. |
|
By:
Rodney: You see, it's fossil fuels! People do not realise the damage they're doing to this planet.
Trigger: I don't have none of them in my house, I use gas and oil. Rodney: Trig, they are fossil fuels! Trigger: Are they? Well, I'll switch to coal in future! |
|
By:
I used to work in the chemical industry, Mexico. In the early 1990s we were called into a meeting and presented with a load of propaganda and the hockey stick graph then told we had to make changes to avoid runaway global warming. It was the prelude to a big development programme as our global customers were coming under legislative pressure to change from solvent based to water based products. Armageddon didn't happen, perhaps we were more successful than we imagined. Nothing like frightening the children if you want something done.
Europe is full already, where would we put hundreds of millions of migrants? The only relatively open spaces are central and northern Asia and North America. We know what the answer will be, Putin is no pushover. |
|
By:
Foinavon
There isn't any recent evidence to suggest Western European leaders believe that "Europe is full". Germany recently allowed in a million + people. Not seen any evidence that 100m people in need of somewhere to live will go to Russia rather than UK/Europe (&USA, Canada etc) I can hardly be expected to comment on the coperate strategy of one chemical company who changed their strategy 30 years ago. If they told you that life as we know it would be over in 10 years, then I suggest you were lied to by your company. However I suspect they gave a load of waffle management speak & did what they viewed was the best way to make a profit. Life won't end in 2030 even if we basically just carry on pollution in the same way we currently are. There lies half the problem- why do anything now went we won't see any benefit for years. UK runs on 4-5 year election cycles, global warming is more about next 20,50,100 years. |
|
By:
A few million is a different proposition to the population of Bangladesh.
Yes, we in our corporate microcosm were subjected to hyperbole should I say (lie is such a nasty little word) and I think we (the populations of industrialised nations) are being similarly stuffed. Most of us adults will be dead in 50 years time, some of us in 20, so the imperative isn't quite there yet. |
|
By:
By the way, it wasn't just one company even though it was a very large multinational, it was industry-wide. You had to reformulate or lose your market share. Some did lose out.
|
|
By:
I think that is the point the young are trying to make.
The over 50s have far more votes than the under 25s , yet basically they won't be effected by global warming (plus U25 believe 50+ to be responsible for the position we are in) The electerate is changing but there is a lot of power/money in the Oil, coal, motor industry, chemical industries etc. They all have top lawyers & contacts in various governments. The young don't have that power- they can skip school, close roads , protest etc. But won't win elections. |
|
By:
They believe it will happen, that is go through a tipping point, I don't.
The most important issue is runaway population increase and subsequent lack of resources especially clean water, or in some cases, any water at all. Nothing is being done about it and to do so would upset too many sensibilities, so it won't happen but more wars will be the inevitable outcome. |
|
By:
OVERTHROW THE CAPITALIST GREED AND TAKE BACK CONTROL
|
|
By:
SMASH THE MIDDLE
|
|
By:
you may not be far from truth peck
in years ahead i can see civil clashes between industry and new earthers , will also solve a bit of population crisis |