5 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

As pointed out earlier, mitigation costs less than avoidance.

So in this context - mitigation = coping with the effects of climate change, and avoidance = trying to prevent climate change?

11 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

There are avoidable disasters and there are unavoidable disasters.

 

It's all about how we (human) manage both so that the cost to continued survival is not too great. As pointed out earlier, mitigation costs less than avoidance.

 

 

 

But mitigation doesn't mean avoidance...   It can mean adaptation...   Ie we accept but adapt to the new reality.

Edited 23 January, 20251 yr by skomaz

Apologies, minced my words, I meant: 

Mitigation costs less than adoption. 

 

Mitigation - reduce, reuse and recycle. net zero, etc. 

Adoption - accept current trajectory and sentence future generations to live in the aftermaths (dramatised wording) 

I think we are way past avoidance stage. 

 

Risk management 101: the earlier the risk is managed, the cheaper the cost. 

 

 

I sense there is great difference in opinion on management of aforementioned risk. It's perfectly normal to have different opinions as it affects all of us. Good to have debate. 

 

Look at what we as global collective have successfully achieved when action is required: saving the O zone layer

What happened to the world's ozone hole? - BBC Future

I think and hope similar can be achieved with man-made climate change. 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

I think and hope similar can be achieved with man-made climate change. 

What about the natural climate changes that have been occurring since well before the Industrial Revolution, such as the Dark Ages warming and the 17th Century mini Ice Age?

 

They happened without any significant input from mankind, similar natural events are still happening such as El Nino & El Nina - and may indeed be behind the latest prediction that 2025 won't be as warm globally as 2024 was?

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2024/2025-global-temperature-outlook

7 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

What about the natural climate changes that have been occurring since well before the Industrial Revolution, such as the Dark Ages warming and the 17th Century mini Ice Age?

 

They happened without any significant input from mankind, similar natural events are still happening such as El Nino & El Nina - and may indeed be behind the latest prediction that 2025 won't be as warm globally as 2024 was?

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2024/2025-global-temperature-outlook

One year (2025) downward prediction for one small country does not equate to a trend.

 

While it's true that the climate has experienced natural fluctuations like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, the current rate and extent of climate change is unprecedented. The speed at which temperatures are rising today is far faster than past natural changes, and scientific consensus attributes much of this acceleration to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. These human-driven emissions are causing an enhanced greenhouse effect, overwhelming the natural processes that have shaped the climate over centuries.

 

 

I must say, I'm not a scientists, I don't feel my argument carries weight. So I can only refer to what experts have concluded:

 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1116619109

Quote

Our analysis indicates that the superposition of two orthogonal modes explains much of the variability (64–100%) in regional and global climate during the last deglaciation (Fig. P1). The nearly uniform spatial pattern of the global temperature EOF1 and the large magnitude of the temperature principal component 1 (PC1) variance indicate that this mode reflects the global warming of the last deglaciation. Given the large global forcing of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (2), the strong correlation between PC1 and the combined GHG forcing (r2 = 0.97) (Fig. P1) supports arguments that GHGs were a major driver of global warming.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226931555_The_Changing_Climate_Past_Present_Future

Quote

The atmospheric temperature increase is accompanied by an increase in sea surface temperature and a rise of the sea level. Evidence is building that human-induced climate change has also a direct influence on changes in precipitation and the hydrological cycle.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49799235_The_Anthropocene_a_new_epoch_of_geological_time_INTRODUCTION

Quote

Anthropogenic changes to the Earth's climate, land, oceans and biosphere are now so great and so rapid that the concept of a new geological epoch defined by the action of humans, the Anthropocene, is widely and seriously debated. Questions of the scale, magnitude and significance of this environmental change, particularly in the context of the Earth's geological history, provide the basis for this Theme Issue. The Anthropocene, on current evidence, seems to show global change consistent with the suggestion that an epoch-scale boundary has been crossed within the last two centuries.

 

 

My point is that GHG emissions are not the ONLY cause of warming and cooling cycles.

 

Using your same argument that one year is not a trend then to base our future actions on 2024 exceeding a target set in Paris is not something that should provoke more actions than are already agreed and being implemented.

4 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

My point is that GHG emissions are not the ONLY cause of warming and cooling cycles.

 

Using your same argument that one year is not a trend then to base our future actions on 2024 exceeding a target set in Paris is not something that should provoke more actions than are already agreed and being implemented.

Agree, GHG is not the only cause. But is is the current major contributing cause and it is man made, thus we can do something about it.

 

Using 1 year in 1 small country as indication of a global overall trend is vastly different to complex climate models used by scientists. Using those models, they have come up with a list of future actions. Missing those actions will set us on to a path that is more likely to lead to worse outcome.

 

It is like compound interest when saving money. 2% above inflation may not seem much over 1 year, but the earlier that money is banked, the bigger final amount.

The earlier the climate action is started in earnest, the bigger effect it will have in reducing temperature rise many years later.

On 23/01/2025 at 08:43, skomaz said:

Yes, yes I'm aware of all that...   But...   Some would call it all part of our planetary evolution, if a little accelerated...   On the basis that a couple of volcanic eruptions would appear to have had a similar if not greater effect than man has?  So why bother even trying to restrain the sea by raising flood defences except in areas of significance (some areas of London might qualify)?  Just let the 13m (?) total sea rise take whatever.   From a humourous point of view I live at the top of a hill next to the Peak District so sea one could argue sea level rises won't affect me, even if weather changes will.   Again all playing Devil's Advocate to see just how strong your contra-arguments are 👍

 

I have been aware of the effects of climate change since the 1970s and in line of what you say above have been very conscious of where one lives in terms of increased flooding risk and this in the UK that is mostly quite resilient against flood risk but with particularly concern for London, as you say, but also the Somerset and Gwent Levels, The Fens etc.   Here is Worcestershire and Gloucestershire the flooding of 2007, the devastations to Tewkesbury and Worcester stick in the memory.  Worcester has millions spent on it for flood defences and this is the nub of the problem in my view.  Not slowing down climate change has a cost of its own meaning more flood and sea level defences.

 

As we have just seen with the Éowyn and its record wind speeds climate change has multiple effects, higher wind speeds, more water being carried by the storm, each 1% rise in temperature means that 7% more water is carried by the storm.  The effects of climate change have a material cost in both countries, counties and individual have to spend much more to protect oneself against these increasingly violet elements. In my industry if storms are more violent then, for example, there will be hours or days when we cannot get  a container ship to dock in Felixstowe, the UK's business container port.   Not doing climate change restraining measures has its own cost.  Some of us are watching what New York State is doing in relation to adding an additional levy on hydrocarbon sales to fund defences against the effects of climate change.  After the severe flooding on the southern edge of Manhattan island, flooded streets, tubeway stations it was a wake call for cities and states as to what can happen with these more violent storms and their surges flooding coastal land which cost billions to repair after the floods and billions to then build sea, river defences, who should pay for that ?  New York has decided that Fossil fuel companies should pay which should help the transition to electric as it prices ICE vehicles out.

 

Yours and my generation have already got the igmany for being the first generation in known history of the following generation being poorer than our generation due to handing them a Western economy that is providing less economic benefits we enjoyed and now it is becoming clearer that will will also have massive climate adaption costs as well economies that are being out stripped by Asian ones like China and now we can see there is billions that need to be spent on climate resilience.  Better choices we make now could save the next generation and the ones after that those massive bills for weather resilience and I want that for my kids and grand kids.     

 

https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/010325-new-york-to-charge-fossil-fuel-companies-75b-under-climate-cost-recovery-law#:~:text=January 03%2C 2025-,New York to charge fossil fuel companies,under climate cost recovery law&text=The state of New York,Climate Change Superfund Act (S.     

 

"The state of New York will assess oil and gas companies a collective $75 billion over 25 years under a new climate law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on Dec. 26.  The Climate Change Superfund Act (S.2129-B) aims to shift the burden of climate mitigation from taxpayers to fossil fuel companies by charging them for the greenhouse gases they emitted between 2000 and 2018.  The funds, to be collected at a rate of $3 billion per year, will help pay for infrastructure upgrades, extreme weather response, cooling systems and other climate-related investments, which could "easily reach several hundred billion dollars" in state costs through 2050, according to the legislation's text.  "New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable," state Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat and lead sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement.  The legislation, creating what it formally called a "climate change adaptation cost recovery program," was first introduced in January 2023. It passed the state Senate in May by a 43-17 margin.  The law applies to producers and refiners that emitted more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases over 18 years. Krueger said the "polluter-pays model" mirrors existing state and federal Superfund laws, which tax companies to cover the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Earlier this year, Vermont passed similar legislation that applies this model to greenhouse gas emitters. "

 

 

Edited 25 January, 20251 yr by lol-lol

Within UK, net zero policies are having a positive effect for jobs and spreading the economic growth. 

 

 

Quote

The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, analysis has found, providing high-wage jobs across the country while cutting climate-heating emissions and increasing energy security.

The net zero economy grew by 10% in 2024 and generated £83bn in gross value added (GVA)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/24/britain-net-zero-economy-booming-cbi-green-sector-jobs-energy-security 
 

Quote

In contrast, the report found the net zero economy is widely distributed around the UK, with the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and south-west England containing the largest hotspots of activity, and net zero jobs increasing by 20% in Scotland since 2022. Net zero jobs also had 38% higher productivity than the UK average.

 

 

Are people opposing net zero work in fossil fuel equity, central London? 

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/

 

Quote

1.1.1 Global climate change

Global temperatures are rising (Figure 1.1). Since we published our Sixth Carbon Budget advice in 2020, climate and weather records have continued to be broken around the world.

• Global temperatures have continued to increase. 2024 was the warmest year on record, at 1.6ºC above pre-industrial average levels.^[1] Long-term human-induced global warming in 2023 is estimated to have risen to 1.3ºC (1.1 to 1.7ºC 5th to 95th percentile range) above pre-industrial average levels.^[2] The rate of increase is unprecedented, reaching 0.26°C per decade over 2014 to 2023.^[3];[4]
• Records for climate and weather extremes continue to be broken. In 2023, ocean heat content reached its highest level in the 65-year observational record and global mean sea level reached a record high. Extreme weather events, such as wildfires and flooding, led to widespread loss of life and property destruction.^[5]
• Warming will inevitably continue in the near term. Global temperatures will continue to rise until the point when the world reaches Net Zero CO₂ emissions, with deep reductions in other GHGs also needed to limit warming.^[6] This continued warming means that the world is rapidly approaching the lower end of the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal (Box 1.1).

 

Quote

1.2.2 The UK contribution to global emissions

UK GHG emissions were 423.3 MtCO₂e in 2023, including the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping, based on provisional data. This is 49.5% lower than in 1990. UK emissions excluding those from international aviation and shipping have now fallen by over half.

The UK’s share of global emissions has fallen from 2.3% to below 1% over this period.

• Despite these reductions, the UK’s emissions are still important. Over a quarter of global emissions are produced by countries with a share of global emissions less than 1%.^[63]
• UK cumulative CO₂ emissions since 1750 are estimated to be around 79 GtCO₂.^[64] This represents around 4.4% of estimated global emissions to date.

 

 

Note how electricity supply has decreased rapidly whilst road transport is the highest emissions sector.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 27 February, 20251 yr by wyx087

I think the Western world has largely given up on stopping climate change.

 

Europe and North Anerica can see they have largely lost the race to produce EVs as China has already won that race.

 

Some, perhaps the US, see climate change as an opportunity to develop Greenland and Northern Canada.

 

The EU's tariffs against Chinese EVs whilst allowing Hybrids to flood in shows they put economics above climate change.

 

It will be countries like Bangladesh that may well pay the biggest price.

 

Florida and a few others areas will be in big trouble. There will be massive cost to keep adapting our ports to stronger storms and surges as well as higher sea levels. Some predictions have the Northern European warming Gulf Stream becoming too weak to keep N.Europe habitable for large population with even 15 year the warming to be too weak to be comfortable in Northern climbs.

 

There are tidal rivers in cities and towns around the UK where they have to be concerned. Glasgow knows the risks of the sea level rising. 

2 hours ago, lol-lol said:

I think the Western world has largely given up on stopping climate change.

Just because there's currently an oil funded orange tit sitting in the oval office, I don't think it signs of "giving up" by everyone else. The push to net zero is already underway in the industries in the US.

 

UK is on the right track as evidence by the CCC report from yesterday.

 

But there's indeed worrying signs of slow down or watering down of policies by both US and EU.

21 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

There are tidal rivers in cities and towns around the UK where they have to be concerned. Glasgow knows the risks of the sea level rising. 

 

Big plans to harness the power not just in the Scottish Isles but the Merseyside project could be epic. Serves to protect eel pool, sorry Liverpool and generate lots of hydro power. 

 

Several lagoon projects being talked about in the Bristol Channel which has the world's second tidal fall after the Bay of Fundy in Canada.

Didn't know until this morning that Canada has over 200k km of coastline. Four times more than any other country.

 

Big plans.  Needing others money as investments.    Truth of the matter the price people and companies can pay for electricity is not allowing the huge profits wanted.    As it is now all the nuclear clean up is being paid for by us and the decommissioned nuclear power stations are on the never never.   We pay now for the cheap power older people had and pay towards the supposed green future.    Those on big money income forget that many pay maybe as much as 25% of net income just in electric and gas. 

BP should have had a totally different company to do Green.   As should every Oil and Gas company.     If the electricity generating can not be profitable then the system does not work, and can not work.        Everyone is creaming off money and looking for nice earnings from the product.  The product is Electricity.      It should be Nationalised.  It is an essential just like drinking water and sewage.         It is a requirement of the whole country.  4 countries and every person .    PS.  The government and local councils delay every plan. Every development.     But then the morons that block stuff are just local or not locals that use electricity. 

Edited 27 February, 20251 yr by Ootohere

As far as solar and loss of agricultural land,  it can be erected and sheep can still be there sheltering or eating.   Ever little helps and there is always land around car parks or shopping malls where solar can be erected.  Council land, common good land etc. 

Amen to that!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/29/phasing-out-fossil-fuels-doomed-to-fail-tony-blair-climate

"Ex political leader voices their opinion without any scientific facts/reasoning to back up their statement."

Amen to free speech. But opinion of an individual should always amount to nothing meaningful.

Sir Tony Blair required his THINK TANK the Tony Blair Institute to come up with a report that he could write the forward for.

They might be right. (Well left wing.)

Maybe they could think about Sir Tony Blair and his support of Israel and its affect on the people they kill and maim.

Sir Tony B liar is as relevant to Net Zero or other world affairs as Gordon Brown or even Sir Keir Starmer.

Edited 30 April, 20251 yr by Ootohere

Have to admit I wouldn't trust Blair as far as I could chuck him - he's always seemed a rather smarmy git to me.

.

22 hours ago, wyx087 said:

"Ex political leader voices their opinion without any scientific facts/reasoning to back up their statement."

Amen to free speech. But opinion of an individual should always amount to nothing meaningful.

You might want to look into The Blair Institute, as it has disproportionate effect on Government policy.

Beyond that, instead of dismissing everything he says as "opinion", it might be more convincing to take "facts" he alleges, and correct them.

@Ootohere 's post shows some of the funding, but there is also a lot of Government money that gets laundered, for want of a better word, through various charities and NGOs to people like Blair and Gates. (Hence all the bleating about DOGE putting a stop to USAID. That's p'd on a lot of people's chips).

Unfortunately for Blair, while previous submissions to various governmental institutions have been welcome, such as during COVID-19 (https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2160/html/), with his latest proclamation he's stepped on a few toes.

So because he's gone off narrative on "Climate Change", suddenly the TBI is a problem and must be looked into.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/30/blairs-net-zero-intervention-invites-scrutiny-of-his-institute-donors

Edited 1 May, 20251 yr by EnterName

6 minutes ago, EnterName said:

You might want to look into The Blair Institute, as it has disproportionate effect on Government policy.

Beyond that, instead of dismissing everything he says as "opinion", it might be more convincing to take "facts" he alleges, and correct them.

Could you share which bits you view as facts?

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Could you share which bits you view as facts?

Sure, here you are, go for it!