Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:56 am

So the COP-21 is upon us. The UK will host the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow on 31 October – 12 November 2021.

The goals:
1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach
Countries are being asked to come forward with ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets that align with reaching net zero by the middle of the century.

To deliver on these stretching targets, countries will need to:

accelerate the phase-out of coal
curtail deforestation
speed up the switch to electric vehicles
encourage investment in renewables.

2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats
The climate is already changing and it will continue to change even as we reduce emissions, with devastating effects.

At COP26 we need to work together to enable and encourage countries affected by climate change to:

protect and restore ecosystems
build defences, warning systems and resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid loss of homes, livelihoods and even lives

3. Mobilise finance
To deliver on our first two goals, developed countries must make good on their promise to mobilise at least $100bn in climate finance per year by 2020.

International financial institutions must play their part and we need work towards unleashing the trillions in private and public sector finance required to secure global net zero

4. Work together to deliver
We can only rise to the challenges of the climate crisis by working together.

At COP26 we must:

finalise the Paris Rulebook (the detailed rules that make the Paris Agreement operational)
accelerate action to tackle the climate crisis through collaboration between governments, businesses and civil society.


Link

The need to combat climate change is beyond question. So the question now is, how are we going to do it and how are we going to make the shift happen in a just and sustainable way, very much including socially.

The signs doesn't look to good. With all the pledges done, with all the plans submitted, the world is still heading for a 3degree rise scenario. This summit could proof to be a make of break summit for the future of mankind. What do we want, as humankind, a livable planet beyond 2150, or a planet which will be livable, but not so much anymore for humans?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15871
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:36 am

Human nature, politics, economic disruption, limits on activities and consumption are all working against any real changes needed to deal with the global climate change crises. Look at how difficult it has been to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:29 am

ltbewr wrote:
Human nature, politics, economic disruption, limits on activities and consumption are all working against any real changes needed to deal with the global climate change crises. Look at how difficult it has been to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.


so we are doomed? I have better hopes for mankind. I hope we can pull one like we did with the problem of the hole in the Ozon layer, we have solved that by pooling together as one world. Covid is child's play, no contest, but if there is a will there is a way and it is not like we have an alternative, we have no planet 'B'. Methods are there to do it, only vested interests are there to block it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:44 am

ltbewr wrote:
Human nature, politics, economic disruption, limits on activities and consumption are all working against any real changes needed to deal with the global climate change crises. Look at how difficult it has been to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with stretch targets and lofty ideals, but harsh reality has a way of stepping in.
Image

Here's a classic example:
The UK government is pushing for people to replace gas boilers (used by the majority of UK homes for heating and hot water) with heat pumps and has just announced a £450 million fund to provide a grant of £5,000 towards the cost. Ignoring for the moment that this only represents assistance for a maximum of 90,000 homes, the costs of installing a heat pump can be astronomical. A reasonable estimate for a large house is that installation would cost around £18,000. Even if the heat pump was able to reduce energy bills by half, you could easily be looking at over ten years before you break even.

In addition, because the heat generated by heat pumps is lower than a traditional gas boiler, most houses will need to install significantly larger radiators to match their existing system. Most homes will also require significant additional thermal insulation. My house is 150 years old with solid walls and large windows, it ain't happening.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:47 am

Dutchy wrote:
so we are doomed? I have better hopes for mankind.


It's great to be optimistic, but there's little in human history to suggest we will sort it out before it's too late.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23456
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:29 am

Welcome to Scotland, where public transport will be on strike :D
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14851
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:13 pm

scbriml : with gas bills going up by hundreds of percent, are you sure it still ain't happening ?

Dutchy : it's COP26 not 21. The number is 26 because it's the 26th conference, it's not linked to the year.

COP21 was back in 2015, when the Paris accord was signed.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:31 pm

Aesma wrote:
Dutchy : it's COP26 not 21. The number is 26 because it's the 26th conference, it's not linked to the year.


Sorry you are right, slip of the pen.

Someone send me a documentary about the climate conference in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, in 1989. Bizar to think that we came very close in making a binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately, the Bush administration pulled out at the last minute. If that conference had been a success, the 1,5degrees would have been in reach. Now we are heading for an uncertain world with 3 degrees with all the consequences that have.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8591
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:47 pm

We’ll adapt and overcome. I’m optimistic on that one.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:16 pm

Dutchy wrote:

The need to combat climate change is beyond question.



Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:05 am

Aesma wrote:
scbriml : with gas bills going up by hundreds of percent, are you sure it still ain't happening ?


It's not happening the way the UK government is painting it. Lots of people will not be able to afford it and a significant part of the housing stock in the UK is unsuitable for heat pumps. I imagine the situation in rural France will be the same for many people, no?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:06 am

A101 wrote:
Say's who?


At least we know where you stand.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:51 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

The need to combat climate change is beyond question.



Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family


Alight, you are still in denial about climate change. You are only 50 years behind in scientific research, if you count the 1972 rapport of the Club of Rome: Limits to growth, as a starting point. So yeah, the link between human behavior and climate change is beyond question, so let's move on and focus on what we are going to do about it.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-26

Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:54 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
We’ll adapt and overcome. I’m optimistic on that one.


Adaptation will be giving up large pieces of land. And of course, with all the dwellings which happen to be there. Or perhaps you are betting on technological advances or perhaps geo-engineering. Perhaps those techniques will be advanced enough in time, perhaps not. Quite a big gamble when there is no alternative planet.

I believe in hedging bets, especially when it comes to having a livable planet for our children and our children's children.
 
kelval
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:14 am

scbriml wrote:
[...]
Here's a classic example:
The UK government is pushing for people to replace gas boilers (used by the majority of UK homes for heating and hot water) with heat pumps and has just announced a £450 million fund to provide a grant of £5,000 towards the cost. Ignoring for the moment that this only represents assistance for a maximum of 90,000 homes, the costs of installing a heat pump can be astronomical. A reasonable estimate for a large house is that installation would cost around £18,000. Even if the heat pump was able to reduce energy bills by half, you could easily be looking at over ten years before you break even.

In addition, because the heat generated by heat pumps is lower than a traditional gas boiler, most houses will need to install significantly larger radiators to match their existing system. Most homes will also require significant additional thermal insulation. My house is 150 years old with solid walls and large windows, it ain't happening.



As a heating technician (it feels weird saying heating engineer as I have no engineer diploma), I totally agree with you. Heat pumps are inherently "weak" heat generators, and are designed for well insulated homes. With the classic heat pumps (non high temperature ones, that have an average at best COP (coefficient of performance, not sure what's the metric you people use in UK)), you can hardly expect any better than 12-14kW and 55°C output ( you know, the ones the marketing departments present as 16kW, except that you need to add a classic electric water boiler element to get the promised performance).

I will have replaced 10 oil and gas boilers this year, and of course I am pushed to sell heat pumps as we have also a lot funding from French state to replace them, but more often than not, I push people away from them as I consider them not adapted for the house of my customers. I think that there is a frenzy towards the heat pump, well helped by the state, a lot of misinformation and aggressive marketing from the industrials and the electricity providers.

Heat pumps are not bad per se, but if people want to have them at all costs, then they need to insulate their houses a lot more. There's no going around this, and there will be lots and lots of complaints from flawed customers in the near future. We should still be able to keep the old boiler to shift when heat pump performances are too bad, but that would be a bad signal to the general public.

When I think a heat pump isn't adequate, I recommend a wooden pellets boiler, if possible. Wich isn't perfect by any means, also there are a lot of drawbacks (mostly the enormous space it takes) but still the "greenest" ( big comas here) we have available at the moment.
Anyways, there is no perfect boiler, be it pellets, heat pump, gas or oil boiler. They all have their good points and their drawbacks. The problem is people are streching heat pump use to the point where there will be some decieved customers.

All in all, and even though I'm preaching against my own business, the main concern should be to insulate, insulate, insulate, and only then change the heat generator. When you don't use a lot of energy, you can choose wichever fits best.

And also, to stay in the COP 26 topic, of course we have to do what we can ,but the problem inherently is that we are too many on earth, and everyone wants to live the occidental lifestyle (understandably of course). Both things makes for an explosive ecologic situation.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:05 am

kelval wrote:
All in all, and even though I'm preaching against my own business, the main concern should be to insulate, insulate, insulate, and only then change the heat generator. When you don't use a lot of energy, you can choose wichever fits best.


That is key, indeed. Without insulation, there is no use to do anything else.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:25 am

kelval wrote:
scbriml wrote:
[...]
Here's a classic example:
The UK government is pushing for people to replace gas boilers (used by the majority of UK homes for heating and hot water) with heat pumps and has just announced a £450 million fund to provide a grant of £5,000 towards the cost. Ignoring for the moment that this only represents assistance for a maximum of 90,000 homes, the costs of installing a heat pump can be astronomical. A reasonable estimate for a large house is that installation would cost around £18,000. Even if the heat pump was able to reduce energy bills by half, you could easily be looking at over ten years before you break even.

In addition, because the heat generated by heat pumps is lower than a traditional gas boiler, most houses will need to install significantly larger radiators to match their existing system. Most homes will also require significant additional thermal insulation. My house is 150 years old with solid walls and large windows, it ain't happening.



As a heating technician (it feels weird saying heating engineer as I have no engineer diploma), I totally agree with you. Heat pumps are inherently "weak" heat generators, and are designed for well insulated homes. With the classic heat pumps (non high temperature ones, that have an average at best COP (coefficient of performance, not sure what's the metric you people use in UK)), you can hardly expect any better than 12-14kW and 55°C output ( you know, the ones the marketing departments present as 16kW, except that you need to add a classic electric water boiler element to get the promised performance).

I will have replaced 10 oil and gas boilers this year, and of course I am pushed to sell heat pumps as we have also a lot funding from French state to replace them, but more often than not, I push people away from them as I consider them not adapted for the house of my customers. I think that there is a frenzy towards the heat pump, well helped by the state, a lot of misinformation and aggressive marketing from the industrials and the electricity providers.

Heat pumps are not bad per se, but if people want to have them at all costs, then they need to insulate their houses a lot more. There's no going around this, and there will be lots and lots of complaints from flawed customers in the near future. We should still be able to keep the old boiler to shift when heat pump performances are too bad, but that would be a bad signal to the general public.

When I think a heat pump isn't adequate, I recommend a wooden pellets boiler, if possible. Wich isn't perfect by any means, also there are a lot of drawbacks (mostly the enormous space it takes) but still the "greenest" ( big comas here) we have available at the moment.
Anyways, there is no perfect boiler, be it pellets, heat pump, gas or oil boiler. They all have their good points and their drawbacks. The problem is people are streching heat pump use to the point where there will be some decieved customers.

All in all, and even though I'm preaching against my own business, the main concern should be to insulate, insulate, insulate, and only then change the heat generator. When you don't use a lot of energy, you can choose wichever fits best.

And also, to stay in the COP 26 topic, of course we have to do what we can ,but the problem inherently is that we are too many on earth, and everyone wants to live the occidental lifestyle (understandably of course). Both things makes for an explosive ecologic situation.


I'm not questioning your expertise at all, but why do we use heat pumps in the US without issue? Are our houses that better insulated? My mom and dad just had one installed switching from a oil boiler and they love it. I know we use a lot more AC/gas furnace combinations than heat pumps, but heat pumps are pretty common too. What is the difference,
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14851
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:13 pm

I don't think the average US house is insulated at all ! It may be that the heat pumps you're using are gigantic. Or are you talking about places with mild winters ?

From my research (I'm looking for a house) if I had to redo the heating generation I would go with a heat pump, and a wood stove. I want the wood stove regardless of the heating situation, but I also think it complements well a heat pump if the latter can reach its limits a few days/nights a year.

Insulating is a must of course, in France all new houses since 2012 must be well insulated, and starting from about now they should be basically passive, although the industry isn't really ready, but by law they should be.

For old houses there is always the possibility to insulate from the outside, it's not cheap even with incentives, but it will become more and more mandatory. For example it will be illegal to rent flats if they're not insulated enough.
 
kelval
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:18 pm

It all depends on one's house energy losses during winter, wich means it's a 3 way equation: climate, insulation of the house, and the way the inhabitants live (+7% energy consumption per additional Celsius degree in the house). You have to heat enough to counter the energy losses.

Don't forget also that in europe, there are a whole lot of older houses. I live in a house that did exist (at least parts of it) before the 15th century. The walls are made of earth and river rocks, part of the walls consist on the medieval rampart. While it has a lot of charm and inertia, it's pretty bad insulation. I can't find the source any more, and I'm not specialized in that field, but from the top of my head, 10cm of rock wool is better insulation than 1m wide walls. English red brick house aren't any better in terms of energy efficiency.
Those houses are harder to insulate.
And then there's the 70-90ies energy eater houses with brick walls and almost nothing as far as insulation goes. And there are a lot of those, with a big oil boiler. Customers will change the doors and windows, insulate the roof, but won't do much more as it becomes really exoensive to insulate walls and floors.
You can't raze everything, and the cost of renovation can sometimes be prohibitive.

I am under the impression (but I could be wrong) that building and renovating houses in the US is less expensive.

Again it all depends on the climate you live in, how the house was built and how much energy it requires to heat it to a comfortable temperature. I've got some clients that are still on oil burners, and have a decently insulated house. Those could change to a heat pump any day (but aren't interested since they burn through less than 800l of oil including heating of shower water each year, wich makes the case for changing impossible to justify financially).

EDIT: and to add to Aesma's post, climate does play a lot. Almost everyone could change to a heat pump on the South of France coast, but it's a tougher case here in a plateau/semi mountainous area.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:48 pm

[quote="kelval"]It all depends on one's house energy losses during winter, wich means it's a 3 way equation: climate, insulation of the house, and the way the inhabitants live (+7% energy consumption per additional Celsius degree in the house). You have to heat enough to counter the energy losses.

Don't forget also that in europe, there are a whole lot of older houses. I live in a house that did exist (at least parts of it) before the 15th century. The walls are made of earth and river rocks, part of the walls consist on the medieval rampart. While it has a lot of charm and inertia, it's pretty bad insulation. I can't find the source any more, and I'm not specialized in that field, but from the top of my head, 10cm of rock wool is better insulation than 1m wide walls. English red brick house aren't any better in terms of energy efficiency.
Those houses are harder to insulate.
And then there's the 70-90ies energy eater houses with brick walls and almost nothing as far as insulation goes. And there are a lot of those, with a big oil boiler. Customers will change the doors and windows, insulate the roof, but won't do much more as it becomes really exoensive to insulate walls and floors.
You can't raze everything, and the cost of renovation can sometimes be prohibitive.

I am under the impression (but I could be wrong) that building and renovating houses in the US is less expensive.

Again it all depends on the climate you live in, how the house was built and how much energy it requires to heat it to a comfortable temperature. I've got some clients that are still on oil burners, and have a decently insulated house. Those could change to a heat pump any day (but aren't interested since they burn through less than 800l of oil including heating of shower water each year, wich makes the case for changing impossible to justify financially).

EDIT: and to add to Aesma's post, climate does play a lot. Almost everyone could change to a heat pump on the South of France coast, but it's a tougher case here in a plateau/semi mountainous area.[/q

Nice, thanks.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8591
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:45 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

The need to combat climate change is beyond question.



Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family


Alight, you are still in denial about climate change. You are only 50 years behind in scientific research, if you count the 1972 rapport of the Club of Rome: Limits to growth, as a starting point. So yeah, the link between human behavior and climate change is beyond question, so let's move on and focus on what we are going to do about it.


Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=dK0FiB5W
 
kelval
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:09 pm

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:46 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family


Alight, you are still in denial about climate change. You are only 50 years behind in scientific research, if you count the 1972 rapport of the Club of Rome: Limits to growth, as a starting point. So yeah, the link between human behavior and climate change is beyond question, so let's move on and focus on what we are going to do about it.


Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=dK0FiB5W


You are comparing oranges and apples.
You are comparing humanity's general well being and climate change.
You're saying that people's well being is better now.
Yes it is. At the cost of global warming. What's the point of feeling wonderful right now, if it means all of your kids and grandkids will live a crappy life?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:54 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.


Yes, on all accounts. Growth has happened at the expense of a lot of carbon eq released and we have so much to go before our overall carbon budget is gone. And thus overall on climate change, we are much worse off. My guess is that you do not want to change anything in your own life, and the implications of science are that we all need to change the way we are doing things. Not necessarily worse, but different nevertheless.

It isn't a question if we want it, we need to change if we want a future for humankind.
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:01 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family


Alight, you are still in denial about climate change. You are only 50 years behind in scientific research, if you count the 1972 rapport of the Club of Rome: Limits to growth, as a starting point. So yeah, the link between human behavior and climate change is beyond question, so let's move on and focus on what we are going to do about it.


Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=dK0FiB5W


Says every leading expert (save me the few examples of those that the GOP and climate deniers pull out at will). The vast majority agree. Always amusing the biggest climate change deniers come from a few countries that usually contribute the most to it.

There's a clear link between climate change and more extreme weather patterns.
There is a clear threat to the gulfstream - it's moving and therefore causing the climate it noticeably change in areas that rely on it.
Countries that live below sea level (many Indian ocean islands, Netherlands) are all becoming more and more at risk due to rising sea levels because of massive melting of ice in both North and South poles. Record temperatures in both have been seen in the last decades.
Pollution is a massive threat to public health and in many cities is a leading cause of cancer and other related diseases
Changing weather is causing chaos for animals - breeding grounds are changing, mating pasterns disturbed. We are pushing animals that we share this planet to to extinction (if it wasn't made enough a ton of rich idiots have poached them to the point of extinction already - mostly US and Chinese).

It's really rather sad that so many people of this generation are quite happy to deny things are changing, that they are man made. What are we leaving for the next generations?

Yes huge numbers of people have been bought out of poverty but in this day and age it can be done without the expense of risking the next generations future on this planet. There is zero excuse for China to have the number of coal power stations it has when Nuclear is available. There is no excuse for Germany to have phased out Nuclear and instead gone back to coal. Brazil has no right to destroy vast areas of the Amazon when it's proven it's a massive absorber of CO2 and vital to the planet in many other areas.

Governments actually need to act now and stop pandering to Middle eastern oil. Save it for plastics, we're gonna need it when we stop burning it to power vehicles.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:21 pm

kelval wrote:
English red brick house aren't any better in terms of energy efficiency.

Those houses are harder to insulate.
And then there's the 70-90ies energy eater houses with brick walls and almost nothing as far as insulation goes. And there are a lot of those, with a big oil boiler. Customers will change the doors and windows, insulate the roof, but won't do much more as it becomes really exoensive to insulate walls and floors.
You can't raze everything, and the cost of renovation can sometimes be prohibitive.


Our house is 150 years old with solid red brick walls. In winter the exterior walls are very cold. Most brick houses built in the last 30 years or so should all have cavity walls with a layer of insulation between the bricks, so they should be a lot better for a heat pump. We also have the misfortune to live in a conservation area where making significant changes to the houses is currently very difficult - for example, we cannot replace our old-style wooden sash windows with uPVC double or triple glazed units.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:07 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Say's who?

Prince Charles and the royal family


Alight, you are still in denial about climate change. You are only 50 years behind in scientific research, if you count the 1972 rapport of the Club of Rome: Limits to growth, as a starting point. So yeah, the link between human behavior and climate change is beyond question, so let's move on and focus on what we are going to do about it.


Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=dK0FiB5W



Agree,earths population density has played a large part of the so called climate change, everything that is man made has to come out of the ground. unless the climate do gooders want to live like a cave man again humans and will pollute and even then we will still have large chunks of deforestation for heating and cooking, with no commercially breeding for food the earth cannot sustain the amount of people living on it,most animals will become extinct then the world population will decrees from famine

All these technological advance come at a premium of comes out of the ground, to build a single wind turbine you need about 200 tones of metallurgical coal and that does not include the other parts to the tower such as concrete production copper silca etc

The climate is ever-changing phenomena its something man cannot change its like trying to stop changing the tides of water bodies it cannot be done, unless we want to make ourselves extinct that is the only way we will have an effect
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:24 pm

A101 wrote:
The climate is ever-changing phenomena its something man cannot change its like trying to stop changing the tides of water bodies it cannot be done


The first part of that sentence, sure, second part complete and utter bullocks. Or to say it more politely, there is no scientific basis for your statement and there is lots of scientific data to counter it.

But of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is just that, your opinion. If someone's opinion is contrary to the scientific consensus I am inclined to dismiss it.

We, as humankind, have been geoengineering the planet for the past 200odd years by pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. And guess what, we have succeeded in changing it, see all the scientific data and something which has been predicted by scientists since the late 19th century, so nobody can claim that they didn't know.

But you don't have to believe me, believe Shell or Exxon with their scientific research done in the '80s. Or you let yourself be influenced by the fossil lobby, the same lobbies that convinced a large portion of the world that smoking wasn't causing lung cancer for way too long. But that is all up to you, of course, it is what you want to believe, and what you believe has consequences for your credibility.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:29 pm

scbriml wrote:
kelval wrote:
English red brick house aren't any better in terms of energy efficiency.

Those houses are harder to insulate.
And then there's the 70-90ies energy eater houses with brick walls and almost nothing as far as insulation goes. And there are a lot of those, with a big oil boiler. Customers will change the doors and windows, insulate the roof, but won't do much more as it becomes really exoensive to insulate walls and floors.
You can't raze everything, and the cost of renovation can sometimes be prohibitive.


Our house is 150 years old with solid red brick walls. In winter the exterior walls are very cold. Most brick houses built in the last 30 years or so should all have cavity walls with a layer of insulation between the bricks, so they should be a lot better for a heat pump. We also have the misfortune to live in a conservation area where making significant changes to the houses is currently very difficult - for example, we cannot replace our old-style wooden sash windows with uPVC double or triple glazed units.


For your kind of house, there are still good solutions to be found. In the end, we need to divert from burning fossil fuels, so there is a huge market to solve any technical difficulties. And I do know of a couple of nice examples in the Netherlands where they have made monuments energy neutral. But that is way to technical to make a case for that online, on a forum.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8591
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Okay, 50 years on, what has happened? Population grew, energy consumption has grown massively and not just petroleum use, climate-related deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were in 1972, a huge middle-class has grown out of poverty (at least 1.5 billion people). So, are we worse off?

Oh, we’ve had 26 expensive, energy dense meetings of international bigwigs living on expense accounts paid by voters to accomplish little.


Yes, on all accounts. Growth has happened at the expense of a lot of carbon eq released and we have so much to go before our overall carbon budget is gone. And thus overall on climate change, we are much worse off. My guess is that you do not want to change anything in your own life, and the implications of science are that we all need to change the way we are doing things. Not necessarily worse, but different nevertheless.

It isn't a question if we want it, we need to change if we want a future for humankind.


I’ll stipulate the facts of climate since 1972; forecasting is, however, very difficult especially about the future. The predictions can easily be changed by tiny changes in factors when applied over decades. Compounding is the issue.

That said, there’s always trade-offs, holding all pollution at 1972 levels would have been a disaster to the billion or so people lifted out of poverty by cheap energy and work opportunities cheap energy afforded them. That’s a trade-off from the future unknown climate changes, future unknowns adaptations and technology.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:58 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’ll stipulate the facts of climate since 1972; forecasting is, however, very difficult especially about the future. The predictions can easily be changed by tiny changes in factors when applied over decades. Compounding is the issue.

That said, there’s always trade-offs, holding all pollution at 1972 levels would have been a disaster to the billion or so people lifted out of poverty by cheap energy and work opportunities cheap energy afforded them. That’s a trade-off from the future unknown climate changes, future unknowns adaptations and technology.


it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:06 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
The climate is ever-changing phenomena its something man cannot change its like trying to stop changing the tides of water bodies it cannot be done


The first part of that sentence, sure, second part complete and utter bullocks. Or to say it more politely, there is no scientific basis for your statement and there is lots of scientific data to counter it.

But of course, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is just that, your opinion. If someone's opinion is contrary to the scientific consensus I am inclined to dismiss it.

We, as humankind, have been geoengineering the planet for the past 200odd years by pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. And guess what, we have succeeded in changing it, see all the scientific data and something which has been predicted by scientists since the late 19th century, so nobody can claim that they didn't know.

But you don't have to believe me, believe Shell or Exxon with their scientific research done in the '80s. Or you let yourself be influenced by the fossil lobby, the same lobbies that convinced a large portion of the world that smoking wasn't causing lung cancer for way too long. But that is all up to you, of course, it is what you want to believe, and what you believe has consequences for your credibility.




I see you are not disputing the facts that mankind has to continue burning fossil fuel to continue its technological advancements and sustain its current living conditions

Net zero goes against everything you are saying you still have to burn fossil fuel for mankind to exist
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:01 am

A101 wrote:
I see you are not disputing the facts that mankind has to continue burning fossil fuel to continue its technological advancements and sustain its current living conditions

Net zero goes against everything you are saying you still have to burn fossil fuel for mankind to exist


Don't twist my words and I am not going to dispute anything you say because it will cost me too much time, one thing that has thought me engaging you in another debate which we cannot mention here anymore because of it.

If you want to deny science, it is up to you. If one denies scientific research, I will not engage it, because it is just a waste of time. I live in a world which deals with facts, I choose to live with facts, instead of living in a fact-free world.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8591
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:41 am

Dutchy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’ll stipulate the facts of climate since 1972; forecasting is, however, very difficult especially about the future. The predictions can easily be changed by tiny changes in factors when applied over decades. Compounding is the issue.

That said, there’s always trade-offs, holding all pollution at 1972 levels would have been a disaster to the billion or so people lifted out of poverty by cheap energy and work opportunities cheap energy afforded them. That’s a trade-off from the future unknown climate changes, future unknowns adaptations and technology.


it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.



The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16535
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:30 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I’ll stipulate the facts of climate since 1972; forecasting is, however, very difficult especially about the future. The predictions can easily be changed by tiny changes in factors when applied over decades. Compounding is the issue.

That said, there’s always trade-offs, holding all pollution at 1972 levels would have been a disaster to the billion or so people lifted out of poverty by cheap energy and work opportunities cheap energy afforded them. That’s a trade-off from the future unknown climate changes, future unknowns adaptations and technology.


it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.



The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions


While you are correct coal will still be king in PRC for years to come, they are investing heavily in new nuclear power capacity, unlike the west, where it has become stupidly anathema.

China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. 100 more with an anticipated capacity of over 100 GW, are planned by 2035. This will be close to half the world's nuclear capacity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... ce4a9445e0
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
I see you are not disputing the facts that mankind has to continue burning fossil fuel to continue its technological advancements and sustain its current living conditions

Net zero goes against everything you are saying you still have to burn fossil fuel for mankind to exist


Don't twist my words and I am not going to dispute anything you say because it will cost me too much time, one thing that has thought me engaging you in another debate which we cannot mention here anymore because of it.

If you want to deny science, it is up to you. If one denies scientific research, I will not engage it, because it is just a waste of time. I live in a world which deals with facts, I choose to live with facts, instead of living in a fact-free world.



There where no words to twist, you can't seems to reconcile the fact that the world will still have to burn fossil fuels to continue the same current living conditions irrespective of tech leaps now and in the future, mining and burning fossil fuels is a fact of life in the industrial age,
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:21 am

Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.



The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions


While you are correct coal will still be king in PRC for years to come, they are investing heavily in new nuclear power capacity, unlike the west, where it has become stupidly anathema.

China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. 100 more with an anticipated capacity of over 100 GW, are planned by 2035. This will be close to half the world's nuclear capacity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... ce4a9445e0


China & India are planning to also increase its coal power generation plants and to increase coal production because of cost its cheaper to build and sustain coal fired plants than nuclear. renewable just cannot sustain base load power

Australia along with the recent announcement of AUKUS have started the debate of nuclear power stations, it is a political hot potato at the moment
 
ACDC8
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:09 am

Ah yes, an event where World leaders and dignitaries fly in from all corners of the globe via private jets to sit around to tell us that we need to give our yearly holiday in the sun some second thought cuz flying is bad :rotfl:

Oh wait, its OK, their flights are offset by purchasing "carbon credits" courtesy of the bottomless honey pot that is the taxpayer :rotfl:

Is Greta gonna be there? Or is she actually in school this time 'round? :rotfl:
 
Newark727
Posts: 2610
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:07 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Is Greta gonna be there? Or is she actually in school this time 'round? :rotfl:


Don't we usually get upset at teenagers for not caring about their futures? Just sayin'.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:16 am

Will we have a new flight tracking thread for this summit or should we use this thread?

As members of an aviation forum we should all be interested in seeing the variety of government leaders' jumbo jets and activists' private jets that converge on Glasgow from all over the world.

Unfortunately some flights will be blocked, like the US President traveling on a 747-200 with a backup 747-200 nearby and a variety of military transport aircraft ferrying multiple SUV's and limousines. But maybe spotters can get some airport ramp photos during the summit showing what will be an unusual and unique collection of airplanes.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:43 am

:rotfl:
ACDC8 wrote:
Ah yes, an event where World leaders and dignitaries fly in from all corners of the globe via private jets to sit around to tell us that we need to give our yearly holiday in the sun some second thought cuz flying is bad :rotfl:

Oh wait, its OK, their flights are offset by purchasing "carbon credits" courtesy of the bottomless honey pot that is the taxpayer :rotfl:

Is Greta gonna be there? Or is she actually in school this time 'round? :rotfl:


just imagine greta's :hissyfit:
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:45 am

IPFreely wrote:
Will we have a new flight tracking thread for this summit or should we use this thread?

As members of an aviation forum we should all be interested in seeing the variety of government leaders' jumbo jets and activists' private jets that converge on Glasgow from all over the world.

Unfortunately some flights will be blocked, like the US President traveling on a 747-200 with a backup 747-200 nearby and a variety of military transport aircraft ferrying multiple SUV's and limousines. But maybe spotters can get some airport ramp photos during the summit showing what will be an unusual and unique collection of airplanes.


Wonder if the AU/NZ PM's will jet pool on the RAAF jet or pick up Pacific island leaders
 
ACDC8
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:47 am

Newark727 wrote:
Don't we usually get upset at teenagers for not caring about their futures? Just sayin'.

Its a good thing that teenagers care about their future, after they're finished their homework - just sayin'
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:30 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.



The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions[/quote]

Bottom line, you don't want to change your way of living and that is way more important than what will happen to the world in the next 50 to 100years, you and your generation will be gone by then. I could go into all your 'arguments' and frame them in a more objective way, but what is the point when your starting-off point is so obvious?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:33 am

ACDC8 wrote:
Ah yes, an event where World leaders and dignitaries fly in from all corners of the globe via private jets to sit around to tell us that we need to give our yearly holiday in the sun some second thought cuz flying is bad :rotfl:

Oh wait, its OK, their flights are offset by purchasing "carbon credits" courtesy of the bottomless honey pot that is the taxpayer :rotfl:

Is Greta gonna be there? Or is she actually in school this time 'round? :rotfl:


You could make fun of it all, sure, but what is your brilliant solution? The house is on fire, and instead of acting, you decided to make a joke. Very amusing and all, but kind of pointless.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:43 am

A101 wrote:
There where no words to twist, you can't seems to reconcile the fact that the world will still have to burn fossil fuels to continue the same current living conditions irrespective of tech leaps now and in the future, mining and burning fossil fuels is a fact of life in the industrial age,


Either you have a very cynicle outlook at life or you just don't care what will happen to other people other than you and perhaps your immediate family. Perhaps I know the answer given the other great 'debate' we had and given the circumstances on a certain island, you have been proven wrong on all accounts, just as you will and in some aspect have been proven wrong here.

Given the above statement, you are either prepared to give up the planet for your children and perhaps grandchildren if you have them, just because you donot want to change the way you do things. Fine, that is one point of view to take, it is not mine but hey whom am I to judge, but be frank about it and just say that.

If you were lived around the turn of the 20th century, would you have said: no airplanes are needed, it just doesn't fit our lives and there are no use for them? Technology advances, sustainable energy production advances etc. etc. embrace it, instead of being cynical and conservative. BTW we are in, or heading to if you will to the post-industrial age, next phase in humann development.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:48 am

Dutchy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
it is a false dilemma, if you look at the per capita numbers, the vast majority of fossil fuels are burned by or for the people in the west, not for the new middle class. People raised out of poverty is a very good thing, I welcome it. And indeed they will use more energy, but the good thing, of course, is that they lag the legacy and they can go the sustainable route and invest in sustainable energy, without going into a fossil fuel-driven society first.



The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions


Bottom line, you don't want to change your way of living and that is way more important than what will happen to the world in the next 50 to 100years


geez, you are making wild accusation there, do you know how he lives?


Dutchy wrote:
I could go into all your 'arguments' and frame them in a more objective way, but what is the point when your starting-off point is so obvious?



Thats called having a conversational debate, which appears something you avoid by your responces
 
ACDC8
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:54 am

Dutchy wrote:
You could make fun of it all, sure, but what is your brilliant solution?

Use Zoom. Lord knows they're telling us to do the same thing instead of commuting to work to save the planet, regardless what it costs us.
Dutchy wrote:
The house is on fire,

Did I say it wasn't?
Dutchy wrote:
and instead of acting,

Who says I'm not acting?
Dutchy wrote:
you decided to make a joke.

And? One can't make a joke at hypocritical politicians that constantly jet across the country for personal reasons while telling me I need to smarten up?
Dutchy wrote:
Very amusing and all, but kind of pointless.

Not at all - practice what you preach would be a good start to get more people to take this more seriously. Lead by example. Be the first to go into battle. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12693
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:00 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:


The US and EU combined produce less carbon emissions than China and their emissions are growing while ours has leveled off. The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita numbers, it cares about total emissions. China is hardly leading the way in serious sustainable energy—coal is still the primary source and will be for decades. Wind and solar aren’t growing fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

I’m a cynic on the issue because governments for 50 years pay lip service but will not put the pain on their citizens. The developing countries won’t tell their populations”you’ll have to remain relatively poor, you can’t grow like the West”. China won’t do it and if anyone could, they could. The democracies won’t because they need the votes and voters will toss them out of office.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions


Bottom line, you don't want to change your way of living and that is way more important than what will happen to the world in the next 50 to 100years


geez, you are making wild accusation there, do you know how he lives?


Who is 'he' you are referring to?

And I noticed you do not deny it.

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I could go into all your 'arguments' and frame them in a more objective way, but what is the point when your starting-off point is so obvious?



Thats called having a conversational debate, which appears something you avoid by your responces


Nope, just going to the root cause and cut all your 'arguments' off. If you want to cut down the three with arguments, it is more efficient to do it at the ground, much more efficient than just picking every leave.
 
A101
Posts: 2577
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: COP-21

Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:03 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
There where no words to twist, you can't seems to reconcile the fact that the world will still have to burn fossil fuels to continue the same current living conditions irrespective of tech leaps now and in the future, mining and burning fossil fuels is a fact of life in the industrial age,


Either you have a very cynicle outlook at life or you just don't care what will happen to other people other than you and perhaps your immediate family.


Cynical or not, facts are as i said before any technological leap or to remain the status que means burning fossil fuels that is a fact you cannot change

Dutchy wrote:
Perhaps I know the answer given the other great 'debate' we had and given the circumstances on a certain island, you have been proven wrong on all accounts, just as you will and in some aspect have been proven wrong here.


You never did prove me wrong, but if that your interpretation good for you;

But i like you to prove me wrong that we can stop burning fossil fuels now and in the future to maintain our current way of life, unless you want to live of grid and off the land

Dutchy wrote:
Given the above statement, you are either prepared to give up the planet for your children and perhaps grandchildren if you have them, just because you donot want to change the way you do things. Fine, that is one point of view to take, it is not mine but hey whom am I to judge, but be frank about it and just say that.


I'm just a realist who knows what change I can effect and what I cannot

Dutchy wrote:
If you were lived around the turn of the 20th century, would you have said: no airplanes are needed, it just doesn't fit our lives and there are no use for them? Technology advances, sustainable energy production advances etc. etc. embrace it, instead of being cynical and conservative. BTW we are in, or heading to if you will to the post-industrial age, next phase in humann development.




PMSL :rotfl:

where have I said i do not embrace technological advances, all I have said those technological advances will still need to burn fossil fuels for them to come to fruition
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: COP-26 Glasgow climate summit

Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:04 am

A101 wrote:
unless the climate do gooders want to live like a cave man again


Show me where anyone has even suggested this. But, by doing nothing, those that survive will be living like cavemen again - however, since you'll be long dead by then, I suspect you simply don't care..

A101 wrote:
Net zero goes against everything you are saying you still have to burn fossil fuel for mankind to exist


Net zero doesn't mean zero burning of fossil fuels. It seems you don't actually understand the thing to which you're so vehemently opposed. Just like the other subject.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elkadad313, T18, tommy1808, Tugger and 33 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos