OpinionWhen it comes to climate change, the only realistic target is zero. Any negotiated 'cuts' to current emissions imply a business-as-usual scenario with targets that will not be met. A zero target would promote the necessary change.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2008-12-15 at 11:35:27   (62 comments)

On 2008-12-15 at 11:36:24, Lee J Haywood wrote...
We've already emitted too much carbon dioxide, etc. - if we hadn't, we wouldn't be worried about it. As it is, adding any more warming is just stupid.
On 2008-12-15 at 12:44:33, George wrote...
Though in scientific terms, aiming for zero could make sense, I think that in political terms claiming a target of zero would provoke ridicule, and might end up doing more damage than good.
On 2008-12-15 at 12:51:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I don't see why. We know that using oil for everything is unsustainable, and we know that if we switch to renewable alternatives - solar, geothermal, wind, waves - then we can use as much energy as we want guilt-free. Economically, we'd be better off and politicians want to get away from being dependent on other countries as much as the rest of us (well, unless you think that the US goes to war just so they have an excuse for increased military spending). If we do absorb more of the sun's energy using the likes of solar panels, the world will still warm as a result (less reflectivity of the Earth's surface), but that's nothing compared with how much worse things will get otherwise.
On 2008-12-15 at 14:04:00, George wrote...
Someone once used the fact that they 'intefere with natural wind patterns' as an argument against building wind turbines, but that seems ridiculous - surely any built structure does that... even planting a tree would, actually. But I've never thought of the use of solar panels directly contributing to global warming... fair point though.
On 2008-12-15 at 14:14:11, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The main point is simply that any non-zero target will not be met. We know this - either you live in a country in which targets are easy to achieve, or where it's sufficiently 'difficult' or 'uneconomical' enough that targets are weak to start with and are unmet when their due date arrives. If they wanted to, a government could get serious about renewables at all levels - not just big industrial polluters. At the moment, almost nothing is done for residential and transport emissions, and little for power generation even. There are solutions to almost all problems. Planning permission could be streamlined for homes, airships used for cargo transport, and renewable energy could be exported by countries with a surplus to where it's needed, etc.
On 2008-12-15 at 18:43:20, BorgClown wrote...
I had a good rant, but my internetz died and stayed that way for almost an hour, bleh. In resume, zero emissions is unfeasible unless the developed countries accept a recession, and the additional burden of financially helping the undeveloped ones to find alternative means of energy. Which is not going to happen anytime soon.
On 2008-12-15 at 19:35:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You're right that it's not going to happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. First of all, having zero carbon emissions does not equal a recession - some countries already produce more renewable energy than they consume, and the amount available in the environment far surpasses our needs. Investing in new technology can boost the economy, but there ought to at least be a tax on carbon. Second, Western economies are all unsustainable growth economies - they assume infinite inputs from the environment, and are guaranteed to collapse in the very near future. If civilisation is to survive, we need to switch to a steady-state economy. It's said that this can be achieved though workers doing fewer hours, although I wonder if automation makes a nonsense of that idea.
On 2008-12-15 at 19:49:55, BorgClown wrote...
That would be sweet, the frantic world of today makes it so you have to work almost all day to have a comfortable home where to sleep. It feels like slavery at times, specially when the boss requests impossible deadlines. For it to work, some kind of restraint would have to be put on greedy businessmen who want more and more money, and want it fast.
On 2008-12-15 at 19:52:32, BorgClown wrote...
There's a point when you can get so rich that multiplying your personal fortune by 2, 5 or 10 is moot, because you won't be able to spend it for generations, unless you gave it away or your descendants were foolish.
On 2008-12-15 at 19:53:53, Lee J Haywood wrote...
In the past even children had to work day and night (by candle) to manufacture in poor conditions and for hardly any pay, just to survive. Then we had the industrial revolution and people suddenly had a lot of free time, followed shortly by ever-increasing hours as the 24/7 way of thinking took off and profiteering took over.
On 2008-12-15 at 20:03:26, BorgClown wrote...
We need robot slaves...
On 2008-12-15 at 20:07:58, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I hope they're powered by renewables.
On 2008-12-15 at 20:41:23, BorgClown wrote...
Dang, are dead babies renewables?
On 2008-12-15 at 20:42:29, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Only if they die of natural causes and weren't created for the sole purpose of providing fuel.
On 2009-01-13 at 17:51:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
Anthropogenic global warming, now known as climate change is a complete farce, it is a communist plot to put a dent in Capitalism. The government should refrain from manipulating the markets.
On 2009-01-13 at 17:55:07, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. To say that it isn't happening is to admit a lack of knowledge of the subject. Unfortunately the misinformation in the media and their willingness to promote those with a vested interest in business-as-usual scenarios contributes to a failure of public acceptance.
On 2009-01-13 at 18:17:38, Baslisks wrote...
Be responsible for your self. Check and make sure you are living up to the very standards you wish to impose on others. Are you putting out 0 emissions? Probably not. What can you do to fix that?
On 2009-01-13 at 18:23:17, Thelevellers wrote...
I have a long term plan in regards to this... Sadly, because of the way the world works I need money to achieve it (quite a lot at that) and so it looks like I'll have to pollute lots to get there... :s The basic plan is a self-sustaining farm - including renewable energy. I have developed the idea in several unrealistic directions as well, like the one taking into account my paranoid mother's theory that the world as we know is going to end, so I have big walls fences and machine gun placements... ;) I agreed, because it is true, it's not likely to happen though :(
On 2009-01-13 at 20:02:26, Baslisks wrote...
Why are you planning that far ahead? It could be a movement to that but in reality most plans shut down when they get off paper. That's a good thing. What can you do right now that would improve your life/your world.
On 2009-01-13 at 21:05:40, DigitalBoss wrote...
Nothing on this planet lives without emitting something. @Lee - If it is so overwhelming, why can't anyone prove it?
On 2009-01-13 at 22:59:08, Baslisks wrote...
Why are emissions considered bad? why is it reserved for only negative emissions? Could you promote maybe positive emissions?
On 2009-01-13 at 23:46:56, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Climate change is proven, at least within a reasonable doubt. If you're unreasonable, no amount of evidence will convince you. As I've said many times, the mainstream media paints a confusing picture and to actually see the evidence and weigh up the details you need to expose yourself to other sources of information. The IPCC was set up initially to disprove climate change, and as a result it insists that only the most certain, peer-reviewed evidence is accepted into their reports. This back-fired somewhat, since the evidence showed that action does in fact need to be taken - and the high-quality of the IPCC reports would be more than convincing if not for interference from the media (although the science in the reports is often out of date, and things are actually even worse).
On 2009-01-13 at 23:48:34, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Baslisks: The only 'positive' emissions would be ones that actually remove greenhouse gasses, since they cannot simply be displaced. At the moment all the energy we use is 'dirty', but in theory we could use as much 'clean' energy as we liked if only we could obtain it from non-polluting sources.
On 2009-01-14 at 20:49:19, Thelevellers wrote...
I like to plan that far ahead, just for fun really... I figure it wont go to plan in the end, but it gives me something to think about. I do do as much as I can right now - I don't drive, turn of lights, don't have a TV to leave off standby, recycle, compost, buy clothes from charity shops or ethically made new where possible... I'm gonna have to give up the no driving next year I think, as I'm trying to get into an apprenticeship scheme and they all seem to like driving licenses, but I'll see what I can do about minimising use, or even getting a hybrid or similar... Oh, and I'm just gonna ignore climate change deniers - partly cause Lee seems to have it under control here, and also cause if you can look at the evidence currently available and say it ain't so, I don't think anything I say will change your mind...
On 2009-01-14 at 21:20:15, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I minimise my energy usage by limiting driving and only having one light on, etc., but we're wasting our time - making yourself miserable to save a little energy is pointless when the energy that we do use is as dirty as it can be. The problem is that we need the governments of the world to promote change for us, whether it be transportation or the energy in our homes. We're not going to (quickly) switch to electric cars sourced from clean energy without industry being pushed in that direction by the government. And we cannot generate our own energy at home without better planning permission, etc. Also the energy produced by solar, wind and wave projects, etc., are pitiful - about 50 MW compared with my local power station which generates 2000 MW from coal. There needs to be a hell of a lot more of them, and soon.
On 2009-01-16 at 02:13:51, BorgClown wrote...
Cold fusion, you have failed us!
On 2009-01-16 at 09:52:20, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Hot fusion too... although there's a cool dude doing hot fusion for small amounts of money, and there's the big laser experiment that's trying to create fusion with a big zap.
On 2009-11-17 at 09:54:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Glaciers and penguins. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1938688,00.html http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1938690,00.html
On 2009-11-17 at 19:27:32, Lee J Haywood wrote...
6 degrees: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8364926.stm
On 2009-11-18 at 02:43:56, BorgClown wrote...
Sometimes I wonder if we should ignore the problem and see what happens. In the best scenario, it would be a false alarm. In the worst scenario, humanity and life in general would suffer the consequences. Maybe the most probable scenario is a world-wide crisis that somehow unifies international efforts.
On 2009-11-18 at 09:54:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Our stable societies have many threats, climate change being just one of them. If we have runaway warming, the consequences will be far beyond our ability to deal with them - too many for me to list here. Life on Earth will adapt eventually, but the fact is that our species hasn't evolved to live in a warmer world, and air conditioning alone won't be enough to save society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming If we have just a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures, there is a 50% chance that there will still be a runaway warming effect from positive feedbacks. Preventing more than 2 degrees is very difficult though, as we're on a fast-moving juggernaut upon which everything relies.
On 2009-11-18 at 16:45:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
Keywords: "if" and "chance".
On 2009-11-18 at 16:56:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
Al Gore is such a dumbass: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDcxYThlNzBkOTcyM2EzZmM2MDEyNjFjOGQ3ZmE5M2M
On 2009-11-18 at 16:59:52, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Presumably he was speaking figuratively.
On 2009-11-18 at 17:02:39, DigitalBoss wrote...
I thing that we were assuming that he had some intelligence; evidently he has none. Of course, he won the jackass award, he acts like a jackass.
On 2009-11-18 at 21:17:31, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Do you have any guesses as to why Al Gore conceded when he was running for presidency? It looked like he could have put up a good fight.
On 2009-11-19 at 15:01:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
He would have fought and lost. My guess is that he conceded because he knew he had lost. Do you think that he conceded for the good of the country? No way. There is no way that man would have given up if he had thought that he had any chance at all. There have been 28 different news organizations that have investigated that election, every time they come up empty-handed.
On 2009-11-19 at 21:16:48, BorgClown wrote...
He gave up too fast for my liking. He had a good case IMNSHO, it was evident that Florida had some fishy business going on. Maybe Gore received or was promised something in exchange?
On 2009-11-19 at 21:18:15, BorgClown wrote...
The voting machines were proved to be easy to tamper, even by design.
On 2009-11-20 at 16:50:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/humble-oil.jpg
On 2009-11-24 at 12:15:12, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8359629.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
On 2009-11-24 at 21:28:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
On 2009-11-24 at 21:44:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
I remember back in the 70s when the big cry was about a new ice age coming. In Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling, you can see the same big-government babble that you hear today, just reversed. People think that somehow the government should save the world and do something to alter the global climate. There is even a mention of painting glaciers black to absorb heat and melt all the extra ice. It gets cooler, and then it gets warmer. Natural cycle. Big deal. http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
On 2009-11-26 at 14:22:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
"Everything should be open to question. The people who have been alleging a conspiracy over the years will see that there is no conspiracy - that one side has clearly won the debate that the climate has been changing and that human activities are the only plausible explanation. "If this is the most evidence they can come up with of a conspiracy after looking through thousands of e-mails where researchers thought they were talking in private - well, it's pretty pathetic." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm As I pointed out before, and must repeat myself, the idea of global cooling was based on poor data and a lack of knowledge about the planet. Now we have satellites and a wealth of long-term data trends and measuring stations. We also have evidence from around the world of the effects of climate change. Even in the unlikely event that the science is completely flawed, the evidence stands by itself and it has nothing to do with 'big government'.
On 2009-11-26 at 14:35:01, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Selectively quoting e-mails is a pretty poor way of supporting a conspiracy theory. Even if one organisation fabricated their entire body of work, science relies on mutual agreement between many organisations and any major flaws would be readily apparent. In the real world, every branch of science has some individuals fabricating data supporting dubious hypotheses - yet science goes on and manages to reach valid conclusions. And your argument that other scientists have been wrong in the past and so current science must therefore be flawed is just laughable. No-one would disagree that science in the past has been wrong.
On 2009-11-26 at 14:39:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
So is China in on your conspiracy? Why would communists want to cut their emissions as the result of a US-led conspiracy? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8380106.stm
On 2009-11-26 at 15:10:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
"idea of global cooling was based on poor data and a lack of knowledge about the planet." Replace the word "cooling" with the word "warming", and you have our current situation.
On 2009-11-26 at 15:11:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Using bad data is a pretty poor way of promoting a scientific theory.
On 2009-11-26 at 15:12:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
"Everything should be open to question." Yes, even the possibility that there is no such thing as AGW.
On 2009-11-27 at 01:49:52, BorgClown wrote...
I wonder what would be the government steering if there was a global cooling... Burn some more shit, citizen!
On 2009-11-27 at 10:47:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Well that obviously wouldn't work - we'd run out of fuel to burn faster. It's nice to see the Japanese are planning an orbiting power station - maybe they would nuke a few forests with it to warm things up. http://www.usef.or.jp/english/f3_project/ssps/f3_ssps.html
On 2009-11-27 at 21:44:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
"Everything should be open to question." Is that why they keep saying the science is settled?
On 2009-11-28 at 03:50:04, BorgClown wrote...
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out". Richard Dawkins You can't consider all the options, that's why experimentation and research are used for: To narrow them to the more likely ones.
On 2009-11-28 at 11:18:17, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Regardless of whether or not the science is 'settled', I do think it's silly to put yourself against the climate scientists who study the data full-time and have built extensive computer models and say that they're all wrong and you're right. Either they're right or you're right - but the burden is upon you to explain exactly why they're wrong and you haven't done that.
On 2009-11-28 at 16:58:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
It is more than just me that is against them my friend.
On 2009-11-28 at 17:43:00, BorgClown wrote...
Did you get a chance to download the (filtered) 61Mb of stolen Hadley CRU emails? Those files were clearly hand picked to support skepticism toward global warming.
On 2009-11-28 at 18:32:05, BorgClown wrote...
There's an interesting follow up here: http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Who-leaked-the-Hadley-CRU-files-and-why
On 2009-11-28 at 21:56:57, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@DigitalBoss: No there isn't. You're an individual with very limited knowledge of the subject. You have an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion, and not an expert one. The fact that there are many other opinionated individuals like you changes nothing. Climate change scepticism is precisely what vested interests want, and they're doing a good job of getting you to do their dirty work for them in spreading their dissent, but no critic has managed to produce the slightest bit of convincing evidence which contradicts the experts.
On 2009-11-29 at 17:14:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
The experts to which you refer have not made their case.
On 2009-12-03 at 09:42:05, Lee J Haywood wrote...
"Forget polar bears, worry about humans." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427355.900-melting-arctic-forget-polar-bears-worry-about-humans.html
On 2009-12-04 at 15:11:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
800,000 years of change. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
On 2009-12-06 at 13:00:50, Lee J Haywood wrote...
UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm The arguments made by climate change sceptics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm