I never thought about it, but it’s not something you see people protesting, like no one is tearing down their neighbor’s solar panels. Hybrid vehicles are owned by a variety of folks. Now, taking positive action, that’s different…
I hope they/we aren’t looking to the U.S. to help anytime soon.
Yes, but the problem is so overwhelmingly large that most people see this as a passive endeavor. at best.
The problem is not the desire for a stable ecosphere, it is the world’s century’s addiction to fossil fuels.
Everyone who use any kind of energy will still be using fossil fuels at some stage of usage. As we discussed before, building a green energy infrastructure will probably use all the remaining oil.
Until ALL energy is totally independent of fossil fuels, all we can do is minimize the harm.
About halfway through, there is a link that says it’s the first systemic assessment of impact of AGW on the economy. Well, it’s about time. It’s of course not the first, maybe the first one by some bankers. It’s what environmentalists have been saying all along, that you can’t have an economy without a planet.
Says the headline. It’s not us, it’s those rich leaders. We’re willing to sacrifice 1% to better the world. That’s nice.
Yet, in America we couldn’t hold on to finest Constitution and pluralistic government under the rule of law.
None of the big boys’ were able to defend the need for government;
the need for taxes;
the need for educated experts;
the need for health and safety regulations;
the need for a respect for honesty in presenting facts and figures;
the need for informative debates rather than theatrics aimed at our animal emotions.
By and large, the good people of American turned their backs on that - and sold our government down the river, and it ain’t coming back children.
There’s no turning our backs to our need for ever more stuff, to create ever more distractions and trash.
No introspection invited or tolerated.
But we can take surveys, ask irrelevant questions, and publish.
Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action
Nature Climate Change volume 14 , pages 253–259 (2024)
Mitigating climate change necessitates global cooperation, yet global data on individuals’ willingness to act remain scarce. In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals.
Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action.
Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income,
86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action.Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute.
Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action. Therefore, raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change.
What of it, what can anyone do with this information? How will this help anyone think or want to behave differently?
I suggest nothing can change so long we cling to our outmooted self-absorbed frame of mind. It’s not all about us. But suggesting as much continues to be the biggest insult of all.
People pride themselves on being environmentalists and aware of Evolution, and sure, we are related to other animals. But it all seems quite superficial, rarely permeates any discussions about dealing with the future. As though economics and agreements can fix this.
(this article being a case in point)
People get offended when one makes a point of explicitly enunciating the need to Deeply appreciate that our mind isn’t some gift from god - it is a product of our body and the world around us.
It is a biological formulation . . . . . . Body + Brain + interacting with interior and exterior world = Mind.
People will dismiss that statement as an intrusion and a distraction upon the conversation - when in reality it’s key to understand how humanity screwed it up so badly.
Related, I contend that, discussions about consciousness need to go out of their way to be explicit and make it clear (then reinforce) that it is not simply “Mind” - it deserves more respect. It is a biological process that matters to be appreciated!
Now someone will jump me, for writing the same old stuff - no different from Inthedarks’ nihilism and nothingness repetitive and near worthless obsession.
I counter, it is these Guardian reports are repetitive dog biscuits, that media has been feeding us for a half century. A lot of words that amount to little, and doesn’t change anything, or anyone - because our underlying thinking and behavior hasn’t changed one bit in the past hundred and more years -
even as the world was radially transforming, and DEMANDING A MORE ADULT APPROACH, than the same old: ME FIRST.
Our nation (like much of the rest of the world) turned out to be all too happy to once again embrace ME FIRST.
We didn’t manage to do the right thing, to respect honesty and learning and caring about our children’s futures. We couldn’t be bothered to learning to take care of this Earth that created us, and that sustains and nurtures us. We didn’t even want to learn that we are biological being responsible for our own actions. It was too much fun to believe: “I think therefore I am” - now that made us special. I bring myself into existence.
Back to wanting positive action of climate change that will require a profound inner awaking that no one seems the least bit interested in. So we’ll keep on keeping on till the bottom falls out to our respective worlds. Same as all the other creatures on Earth have always been doing. Still, it hurts, I was raised thinking humanity could do better.
Nothing in our world will change, unless something inside of people changes.
*That is our relationship with ourselves,
and our relationship with this Earth that created us.
Hard work, still, it pays awesome dividends.
China is our only hope
Welcome greenhammerxxx,
Looking forward to your thoughts.
China must be a major player in that it has the largest population in the world and has he greatest effect on the environment. I admire their efforts in developing green power.
Let’s hope some 40 years will be enough to transition from fossil fuels before they run out and were stuck with a worldwide useless fossil fuel infrastructure.
The west has gone completely mad.
Why it matters. Perception is everything. People act based on what they think others are thinking.
@greenhammerxxx
Welcome, I think. The Telegraph is known to be conservatively biased and I won’t give them my email so if you could provide a summary of what it says, that would be useful.
1 Like
Experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming will be given the green light by the Government within weeks.
Outdoor field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine, are being considered by scientists as a way to prevent runaway climate change.
Aria, the Government’s advanced research and invention funding agency, has set aside £50 million for projects, which will be announced in the coming weeks.
Prof Mark Symes, the programme director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”.
“We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so, we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place,” he said.
“One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much.
“Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research.
“We have strong requirements around the length of time experiments can run for and their reversibility and we won’t be funding the release of any toxic substances to the environment.”
Geoengineering projects which seek to artificially alter the climate have proven controversial, with critics arguing they could bring damaging knock-on effects, as well as being an unhelpful distraction from lowering emissions.
However, scientists are increasingly concerned that carbon dioxide levels are not falling fast enough and that further action may be needed to prevent catastrophic warming.
One major area of research is sunlight reflection methods, which includes stratospheric aerosol injection whereby tiny particles are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.
Another potential solution is marine cloud brightening in which ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds.
Shipping fumes
In recent decades, experts noticed that the clouds above shipping routes were far brighter than usual, as pollution caused them to become more reflective, bringing an overall dimming effect.
This cooling from shipping fumes was so marked that when international regulations were enacted to curb sulphur dioxide emissions in 2020, it caused a spike in global warming, scientists believe.
Prof Jim Haywood, of Atmospheric Science at the University of Exeter, said: “If you inject small particles into clouds you can brighten them, hence reflecting more sunlight back out to space.
“How do we know this could work? Well, there are a couple of very strong pieces of evidence.
“Ship emissions from the smoke stack into the marine environment lead to bright lines in clouds over the ocean.
“Then there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland in 2014 which spilled out a lot of sulphur dioxide. What this does is it brightens clouds and cools the planet. What we need to do is some form of field experiments.”
Seeding cirrus clouds
Other ideas for geoengineering include seeding cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape into space. Currently, the wispy high-altitude clouds act as a blanket, trapping in heat.
Dr Sebastian Eastham, a senior lecturer in sustainable aviation at Imperial College London, said: “Every time you fly, sulphur, which is naturally present in jet fuel, is emitted into the lower most stratosphere causing a small cooling effect.
“Similarly, aircraft contrails cause accidental cirrus cloud modification but in this case accidentally causing, rather than preventing or thinning, cirrus clouds.
“This points to the fact that it’s theoretically possible (to cool the planet) with current day technology but there are many practical questions that would need to be answered before they could be done at scale.”
Experts are hopeful that if experiments prove a success, they could be scaled up and implemented within 10 years.
As well as outdoor experiments, Aria will also be funding new modelling studies, indoor tests, climate monitoring and gauging public attitudes to geoengineering.
Thanks! And why is experimenting with this “completely mad”? Obviously we need to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but since we are failing miserably at this it might be useful to increase albedo wherever we can. Seems to me that not experimenting with physics that might possibly help us would be mad. And I can’t imagine this being exorbitantly expensive to try.
Well, we can track it. I’m always Amazed when people make predictions with short timelines. Can’t wait for the explanation if it doesn’t happen.
Geoengineering while we burn even more FFs. Is that what public wants?
Honestly, some of the public thinks climate change is a hoax. Those people elect an ignorant leader who decries, “Drill baby drill.” Personally, that disgusts me. I voted for Harris. Given your concerns, I suspect you would not vote for trump and we are on the same side.
But given that that we are burning fossil fuels, some people are trying to mitigate the effects. I don’t fault them.
1 Like
Yes, lets inject some more stuff into the atmosphere. Maybe we could become luminous and light up our skies a lttle more. We are on a path to become “enlightened” people. Ain’t that a hoot!
the desperate efforts of sorcerer’s apprentices to evade the issue of changing totally our way of life, of producing, of consuming goods, in short to maintain a predatory capitalistic system.
1 Like
But if their plans are full of faults?
Not to mention built upon a childishly naive appreciation for Earth’s complexities and disregard for untended consequences (known and unknown kinds). Then the ruthless money men step up and figure out how to profit off the scheme, people who couldn’t really care less if it’s a success for not.
Look at electric cars, they are wonderful, but are they really making a difference when it comes to “cleaning up the environment” and at what cost, now people are driving around time-bombs to “save” the Earth.
History has shown us that increasing technology to fix the problems that increasing technology creates, doesn’t work that well.
Back to the Great Dimming Debate
- Scientists are calling on political institutions to place limits on solar geoengineering research so that it cannot be deployed unilaterally by countries, companies or individuals.
- Long-term planetary-level geoengineering interventions of this kind are unprecedented and extremely dangerous, say the academics behind the letter, and should not therefore be experimented with outdoors, receive patents, public funds or international support.
- Solar geoengineering’s leading proposal — injecting billions of aerosol particles into the Earth’s stratosphere — could have severe, unintended and unforeseen consequences. Modelling suggests that it may cause drying in the Amazon rainforest
- In addition, if solar geoengineering were deployed, it would need to be maintained for decades. Sudden discontinuance would result in Earth facing what scientists call termination shock, with a sudden temperature rise due to existing atmospheric carbon emissions which would have been masked by cooling stratospheric aerosols.
and so on . . .
Sorcerer’s apprentices? There are no spells, magic, or witchcraft.
Your comment about evading the issue of burning fossil fuels is a good one, but how many decades are we supposed to wait for serious reductions in such consumption to happen???
That’s what experiments are for. And experimenting is all this is at this point.
Yes, over time they are helping the environment. It will take many years however for them to reach a scale and become affordable. We have major hurdles to overcome like recycling, mining improvements, and use of public transportation to name a few. And I wouldn’t call these batteries time bombs. But they do require care in manufacture, charging, and storage. And the chemistry is constantly evolving.
Look, people have been raping this planet and misusing its resources from the moment we arrived. Rather than making a sarcastic remark about our faults, why not get serious and discuss specifics.
This is supposed to be a forum for science and reason; not an emotional rant fest.
The article cited in The Telegraph mentioned small scale experiments, some indoors, that are rigorously assessed.
In fact, the leader of these experiments said that, “no toxic substances would be released, an environmental impact assessment would be published before outdoor experiments and that local communities would be consulted.”
This is how science is supposed to work. These experiments can help us understand more about how we can possibly affect positive local changes to perhaps reverse glacial melting. Such experiments can also show us why we should NOT proceed in other directions. That’s all good stuff to learn.
1 Like
Global experiments have global consequences!