SNP on Climate Change

[SandyCromarty]

4 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

We should bear in mind the UK emits as much carbon now as it did in the 1890s, largely down to switching from coal to gas fired power for the majority of our electricity needs. It's not all bad news.

And there was an era from early last century until the late 1950's where major UK cities would virtually be shut down and people died due to smog.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 put an end to that.

[jamamafegan]

I think it is unrealistic to suggest that we halt fossil fuel use. We should continue to drill for oil and we WILL continue to drill for oil until it’s gone. But as we do that we should be scaling it down and investing/moving over to clean energy. Scotland seems to already be doing that but we could be doing so so much more that we aren’t bothering to do - steps that are easier than building massive turbines.

All new build houses should have solar panels and rain water tanks, and the gardens should have a vegetable patch ready for use. Encourage self sufficiency on a national scale.

Then if we look at the countryside, the number one massive thing we as a nation should be doing to reduce carbon emissions is rewilding. Replant the lost forests of old, wet and restore the peatlands - a crucial natural carbon capture. Not only would this be good for the climate but it would be fantastic for biodiversity in Scotland.

We could also be rewilding towns and cities as well by creating more urban green spaces and by planting more trees and plants in towns and cities. This would make our towns and cities much more aesthetically pleasing and help to reduce air pollution. The small steps are there but we aren’t taking them.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Those Danish folk that own about 10% of Scotland say they're going to rewild a lot of it. I'd rather that was a public decision but I'll not grumble.

The ones who lost 3 kids in the Sri Lanka murders?

[ForzaDundee]

29 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Those Danish folk that own about 10% of Scotland say they're going to rewild a lot of it. I'd rather that was a public decision but I'll not grumble.

They are Dane ma nut in.

 

4 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Given your last foray into this forum was to defend Jordan Peterson I would be interested to know who you're basing this conclusion off of. I don't pretend to understand the details myself but I've read plenty from folk who purport to know that it's getting a bit desperate in terms of making people give a shit before it's too late.

IPCC Assessment Report is what everyone bases there conclusion off. Very little people have read and understand it which is why the level of debate is so poor. I know it very well having completed a Masters engineering thesis on carbon capture and abatement technologies.  

4 hours ago, AuAl said:

I understand and agree with your part about the drastic measures that some call for not being suitable.  But are you saying that whether there is a climate emergency or not, its nonsense to say there is unless they have background in policy or techno-economics? Are people not able to educate themselves on the topic and have an opinion without being a professional in the industry?

There is man-made climate change - speed and extent of this  is debatable and we'll just have to wait and see if CO₂  levels continue to rise at the same rate as they are currently.  

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Scientists, who are the only people who truly know what they are talking about as regards this problem,  seem to be almost entirely in agreement that man made climate change is leaving us a relatively few short years away from irretrievable disaster where the planet may become inhabitable for humans and you are worrying about economics?

I think your priorities are interesting here.

The consensus isn't anywhere near as drastic as your trying to make out. Take a few weeks to read and understand exactly what the IPCC reports say.

Economics is the only thing to worry about in this debate. I think you maybe don't know what economics is if you can't see this. The only reason to worry about climate change is from an economic point-of-view, specifically if changing climate lowers the resource carrying capacity of the earth.

Overall we need to realise that our life and way of life on earth is the product of fossil fuel. The use of fossil fuels has drastically changed human experience for the better, we live in the best time ever to be a human because of the advancements that fossil fuels have afforded us. There is a very strong moral case for not impeding this progress as things are improving. There is a great book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which explains this in pretty layman terms. 

[NotThePars]

3 minutes ago, ForzaDundee said:

They are Dane ma nut in.

 

IPCC Assessment Report is what everyone bases there conclusion off. Very little people have read and understand it which is why the level of debate is so poor. I know it very well having completed a Masters engineering thesis on carbon capture and abatement technologies.  

There is man-made climate change - speed and extent of this  is debatable and we'll just have to wait and see if CO₂  levels continue to rise at the same rate as they are currently.  

The consensus isn't anywhere near as drastic as your trying to make out. Take a few weeks to read and understand exactly what the IPCC reports say.

Economics is the only thing to worry about in this debate. I think you maybe don't know what economics is if you can't see this. The only reason to worry about climate change is from an economic point-of-view, specifically if changing climate lowers the resource carrying capacity of the earth.

Overall we need to realise that our life and way of life on earth is the product of fossil fuel. The use of fossil fuels has drastically changed human experience for the better, we live in the best time ever to be a human because of the advancements that fossil fuels have afforded us. There is a very strong moral case for not impeding this progress as things are improving. There is a great book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which explains this in pretty layman terms. 

 

Isn't Alex Epstein a Koch-funded philosopher? 

[pandarilla]

The consensus isn't anywhere near as drastic as your trying to make out. Take a few weeks to read and understand exactly what the IPCC reports say.
Economics is the only thing to worry about in this debate. I think you maybe don't know what economics is if you can't see this. The only reason to worry about climate change is from an economic point-of-view, specifically if changing climate lowers the resource carrying capacity of the earth.
Overall we need to realise that our life and way of life on earth is the product of fossil fuel. The use of fossil fuels has drastically changed human experience for the better, we live in the best time ever to be a human because of the advancements that fossil fuels have afforded us. There is a very strong moral case for not impeding this progress as things are improving. There is a great book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which explains this in pretty layman terms. 

You appear to be seeing your stall against the mainstream scientific community.

If you're going to convince me you're going to need better evidence from more reliable sources.

A balanced article or two would be good. All I've read about the climate emergency brigade suggests they're very clear on the evidence, and are finally moving the needle on public opinion. For far too long politicians have got away with shit on this issue.

[ForzaDundee]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

You appear to be seeing your stall against the mainstream scientific community.

If you're going to convince me you're going to need better evidence from more reliable sources.

A balanced article or two would be good. All I've read about the climate emergency brigade suggests they're very clear on the evidence, and are finally moving the needle on public opinion. For far too long politicians have got away with shit on this issue.

I'm not against the scientific community at all - read what the IPCC actually say and you'll see it's not as drastic as the middle-class hippies gluing themselves to roads think. 

What evidence do the climate emergency brigade ever give? 

Politicians don't have a clue on this issue which is why they listen to policy advisors who are on whole a lot more clued up (that's their jobs) and understand that being too overzealous on emissions would be bad for humankind.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This recent crop of climate change activists is the worst yet. Do people not realise that leaving all fossil fuels where they are and cutting emissions too far and too soon would destabilise the whole world economy leading to untold levels of famine, war, misery and death in the developing world.

The clip of Emma Thompson being challenged on flying in first class from LA to join them is class.

I'm not saying climate change isn't important - but some campaigners are hypocritical shitebags.

[Kuro]

10 hours ago, AuAl said:

10 hours ago, ForzaDundee said:

This recent crop of climate change activists is the worst yet. Do people not realise that leaving all fossil fuels where they are and cutting emissions too far and too soon would destabilise the whole world economy leading to untold levels of famine, war, misery and death in the developing world.

If done overnight, on a world scale then yes. A gradual process of moving from fossils fuels to renewables is how we all have to operate. I'd quite like to see scotland at the forefront of countries moving to disassociate ourselves from those practices. My point was more aimed at the SNP apparently basing scotlands future prospects, be it independent (hopefully) or not, entirely on all our oil reserves. When really if they are serious about scotland being a green, sustainable country we should not be promoting the extraction of oil as much.

You'll need to show us where they've done that.  Just one quote.

[SandyCromarty]

16 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

For those who want to gain a little perspective over how humans could be affecting things as vast as our atmosphere or our water here is a pretty stark graphic showing the relative volumes of the earth and it's associated water and air.

If this doesn't shock you, nothing will TBH.

Air and Water volume compared to volume of earth

For balance against alarmist views you should look at what Professor Bjorn Lomberg has to say on climate change, I attended a lecture by him at the Scottish Parliament some years back and his views were informative.

Recently even the likes of Attenborough on a recent televised programme went down the route of controversy when he mentioned that the harvesting of Palm Oil went solely into the production of soaps etc when in fact 75%  is imported into the UK for conversion into Biofuel. 

[DublinMagyar]

Fucking hell

[ForzaDundee]

Recommend the book "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" by Steven Pinker. Just finished this and gives great perspective to the fact that things are the best they have ever been and are getting better every day. It's human nature to believe in some form of existential danger but it goes against the facts. Bill Gates recently said this was his new favorite book of all time.

 

Imagine if newspapers had run with the headline "WORLDWIDE POVERTY FELL BY 137,000 SINCE YESTERDAY”, this is true every day for the past 25 years.

[jamamafegan]

The clip of Emma Thompson being challenged on flying in first class from LA to join them is class.

I'm not saying climate change isn't important - but some campaigners are hypocritical shitebags.

Disagree with this. Heard some absolute morons on BBC Scotland saying “some of these campaigners are hypocrites because they flew from Europe to London to join the protests.” How else were they supposed to get there - fucking drive? Just absolute idiots choosing to ignore the bigger picture and instead nitpick at shite like that to have a go at the people who are actually standing up for change.

One of the things we are being told to do to reduce our carbon emissions is to fly less. Realistically though most of us are only doing a return flight once a year to go on holiday. There’s the commuters who fly to bigger uk cities who could get the train but other than that it’s a cop out suggestion.

[pandarilla]

Disagree with this. Heard some absolute morons on BBC Scotland saying “some of these campaigners are hypocrites because they flew from Europe to London to join the protests.” How else were they supposed to get there - fucking drive? Just absolute idiots choosing to ignore the bigger picture and instead nitpick at shite like that to have a go at the people who are actually standing up for change.

One of the things we are being told to do to reduce our carbon emissions is to fly less. Realistically though most of us are only doing a return flight once a year to go on holiday. There’s the commuters who fly to bigger uk cities who could get the train but other than that it’s a cop out suggestion.

There's a lot of folk who fly much more than once a year.

It can't be sustainable when you think about the number of people on the planet. Similar argument for the consumption of meat.

[jamamafegan]

There's a lot of folk who fly much more than once a year.

It can't be sustainable when you think about the number of people on the planet. Similar argument for the consumption of meat.

Is there? They must get good holidays then/make enough money for multiple trips.

The meat argument is different because it is much more realistic to ask people to cut down on their meat consumption rather than reduce the amount of times they fly.

[NotThePars]

50 minutes ago, ForzaDundee said:

Recommend the book "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" by Steven Pinker. Just finished this and gives great perspective to the fact that things are the best they have ever been and are getting better every day. It's human nature to believe in some form of existential danger but it goes against the facts. Bill Gates recently said this was his new favorite book of all time.

 

Imagine if newspapers had run with the headline "WORLDWIDE POVERTY FELL BY 137,000 SINCE YESTERDAY”, this is true every day for the past 25 years.

 

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/steven-pinker-global-poverty-neoliberalism-progress?fbclid=IwAR0JblpBuGfLrcpIqQbjtnC5u8FFuVIiD4LoQk8gdY-_G5zu43oUUrfgiNA

I've seen Richard Seymour and Adam Johnson (no not that one) link this before.

[Kuro]

57 minutes ago, ForzaDundee said:

Recommend the book "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" by Steven Pinker. Just finished this and gives great perspective to the fact that things are the best they have ever been and are getting better every day. It's human nature to believe in some form of existential danger but it goes against the facts. Bill Gates recently said this was his new favorite book of all time.

 

Imagine if newspapers had run with the headline "WORLDWIDE POVERTY FELL BY 137,000 SINCE YESTERDAY”, this is true every day for the past 25 years.

Is that factoring in population growth?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 Disagree with this. Heard some absolute morons on BBC Scotland saying “some of these campaigners are hypocrites because they flew from Europe to London to join the protests.” How else were they supposed to get there - fucking drive? Just absolute idiots choosing to ignore the bigger picture and instead nitpick at shite like that to have a go at the people who are actually standing up for change. 

One of the things we are being told to do to reduce our carbon emissions is to fly less. Realistically though most of us are only doing a return flight once a year to go on holiday. There’s the commuters who fly to bigger uk cities who could get the train but other than that it’s a cop out suggestion.

 

 

She was asked if she should have gone economy instead of first class (as you will know it has a carbon footprint 6 times that of economy) - and the response said it all.   

 

She is a fucking hypocrite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sophia]

7 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

 

Is there? They must get good holidays then/make enough money for multiple trips.

The meat argument is different because it is much more realistic to ask people to cut down on their meat consumption rather than reduce the amount of times they fly.

 

I and many colleagues I work with fly multiple times per year. It's a requirement of the job that people meet face to face.

Even at a lower level, training and project meetings require travel.

I'm not sure that any of us relish red eye mornings, delays and disruption.

However, air travel is a fact of life and will continue to be so until a suitable substitute can be made and argued for to replace face to face interactions.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Just wait until Swinney unveils his flying meat farm plans.