These people are mad

Britain will today set a legally-binding target to cut greenhouse gases to “net zero” by 2050, Theresa May has announced.

The Government will set out legislation today to slash emissions despite warnings from Philip Hammond that meeting the target could cost £1trillion.

The move comes after the Government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change called for the new legal target to be brought in as soon as possible and to urgently ramp up action to cut emissions.

Hitting net zero – a 100 per cent cut in emissions – will mean an end to heating of homes with traditional gas boilers, more green electricity, and a switch from petrol and diesel cars to electric vehicles, walking and cycling.

Every single bit of the science that says it’s worth doing something about climate change also says that we shouldn’t do it by setting emissions targets. So, what do they do?

Sheesh.

Not really, no

The head of Scotland’s nature conservation agency has warned the country faces an “apocalyse” of flooded towns, dead forests and polluted rivers unless urgent action is taken to cut CO2 emissions.

Francesca Osowska, chief executive of Scottish Natural Heritage, said the world had barely a decade to shift to a low carbon economy before the effects of global heating were irreversible and catastrophic. She said there were very clear threats facing Scotland, and by implication the rest of the UK, unless radical action was taken by 2030.

“Imagine an apocalypse – polluted waters; drained and eroding peatlands; coastal towns and villages deserted in the wake of rising sea level and coastal erosion; massive areas of forestry afflicted by disease; a dearth of people in rural areas; and no birdsong,” she told the Royal Society of Edinburgh on Thursday evening.

Scotland’s still moving up as a result of losing the weight of the ice cap those tens of thousands of years ago. That’s why Southern England is still moving down too.

Sea level rise is less of a problem in Scotland than elsewhere…..

No, this doesn’t mean don’t worry etc. But wouldn’t it be nice if the supposed experts in such matters were in fact expert?

One bit wrong with this story

OK, internal migration in Bangladesh. Poor rurals moving into urban slums. ETc, etc.

The thing wrong?

…climate change is fuelling a migration crisis …the effects of climate change. ….Each year, millions of Bangladeshis are being forced to migrate from their rural homelands to cities because of climate change related issues

Well, no, not really. Cyclones displace people, storm surges salinate land, sure. But cyclones are hardly new in Bengal, nor storm surges. There is vast population pressure on the land – can you imagine how crowded a Malthusian economy will get when you can crop rice 3 and sometimes even 4 times a year? One slight falter, let alone a misstep, and yes, internal migration as opposed to starvation.

But climate change? Jeebus, the place is one vast river delta. Land loss etc is just part and parcel of the basic geography. As is a few more billion tonnes of soil coming downstream every year.

I’m even willing to agree that the place will do badly out of climate change. But I would insist that to measure the cc effect you’ve got to subtract what would be happening anyway. Which no one ever does….

An important question I don’t know the answer to

This climate emergency by Labour thing. Is that an emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act?

Basically, they can do absolutely anything they damn well want to.

So, to the interesting question. This climate emergency that Labour wants to declare. Is it an emergency as defined under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004? And thus the end to democracy, liberty, freedom and our delivery into the clutches of the eco-fascists? Or it it a bit of blow hard puffery of no real meaning at all?

Inquiring minds would like to know, eh?

Yippee, the revolution!

Climate change is hurling humanity towards disaster. There is no more room to question the science, when nearly every climate scientist is in agreement that the implications of a global rise in average temperature will spell drastic changes for human civilisation. In the face of such a rapidly encroaching threat, political niceties and traditional incrementalism and compromise cannot come close to the level of change and upheaval required to solve, or even mitigate, the problem of global climate change.

That’s what they mean by no incrementalism. We get to have the revolution right here, right now. No different from any other sect preparing for the end of the world unless……

Sadly.

The current ineptitude and impotency of the ruling class is unacceptable when the consequences of inaction are so far-reaching. More than ever, it is time for workers – those who will be hardest hit by soaring food and healthcare costs, and by property destruction caused by natural disasters and the rising sea – to exert their power and force the hand of major players (governments and corporations) to avert what is almost certain to be the next global mass extinction.

The workers – Marx and Engels ride again.

If only they were

Standing beside a windswept junction near Germany’s Baltic coast, Thea Funk points at a stretch of land to the north.

“They want to build 12 turbines up there, each one 240 metres high. And down there there are plans to put up more, somewhere between six and eight,” she explains, gesturing to a field across the road. “We’re going to be encircled.”

Behind her, 30-odd people line the road holding signs bearing anti-wind energy slogans. Residents of the Friedland Moor in northeast Germany, they are convinced their landscape is about to be destroyed for the gain of landowners and energy magnets.

The actual problem with the windmills of course being how little energy they attract.

Blimey

Greta Thunberg was born on 3 January 2003.[7] Her mother is Swedish opera singer Malena Ernman and her father is actor Svante Thunberg.[8] Her grandfather is actor and director Olof Thunberg.[9]

In November 2018, Thunberg mentioned having been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.[10][11] To lower her family’s carbon footprint, she insisted they become vegan and give up flying,[12] as she did herself.[13]

Erm, yes. So, extremely privileged young woman. But it’s the other stuff that worries. By definition Aspies, OCD etc are social inadequates. So we’re to run the world according to the demands of a social inadequate? Why not just hand it all over to the incels? Or doesn’t that work as they’re the wrong kind of inadequates?

So, err, Greta, how you arriving then?

Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old founder of the school strikes for action against climate change, has said she hopes to join the Extinction Rebellion protests when she visits London next week.

Right.

Her arrival on Sunday

Super.

She had previously arranged to be in London after Easter

Great.

During her Easter holidays, she has been on a European speaking tour and has, so far, met Pope Francis and addressed the European parliament.

Tip top.

So, what method of transport you using to wander around Europe in your Easter hols then? And what are the emissions from your doing so?

Your emissions being unicorn farts of course, not damaging to the environment at all….

Gaaah!

Cretinous nonsense:

Studies show that average global incomes could be significantly reduced, perhaps by as much as
one-quarter by the end of the century, if limited or no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

That’s from the Bank of England and they at least should know better.

The actual worry is that incomes could be reduced by 25% from where they would be without climate change. We do also expect incomes to be some 3 to 5 times higher then than now. It’s the reduction in their being 3 or 5 times higher, not reductions from incomes now.

Jason Hickel is weird

Climate breakdown is coming. The UK needs a Greener New Deal
Jason Hickel
Global economic growth is outstripping our green efforts. A cap must be put on consumption before is it cripples us

If you asked Jason Hickel whether cap and trade would be a decent response to emissions he’d tell you no. Because.

But to really make it work, we need to get straight to the heart of the issue: put a cap on annual material use and tighten it year on year, down to 8 tonnes per capita by the middle of the century.

But cap and trade on everything will work. Go figure….

Well, yes, super then

A central task for any campaign is to develop a narrative: a short, simple story explaining where we are, how we got here and where we need to go. Using the narrative structure common to almost all successful political and religious transformations, the restoration story, it might go something like this. “The world has been thrown into climate chaos, caused by fossil fuel companies, the billionaires who profit from them and the politicians they have bought. But we, the young heroes, will confront these oligarchs, using our moral authority to create a movement so big and politically dangerous that our governments are forced to shut down the fossil economy and restore the benign conditions in which humans and other species can thrive.”

Super, now, the details of who we do this.

You favour Nordhaus or Stern here? You’ve grasped the Dasgupta point have you? Yes, Marty Weizman has a good worry so how much attention do we have to pay to it?

Hmm, what’s that? You’ve no idea what I’m talking about? That is, you’re going to try and solve climate change without having the slightest clue of the science of solving climate change?

Good luck with that really.

This is actually possible

The “Little Ice Age” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was triggered by the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas by European settlers, new research shows.

Scientists have long wondered what caused the drop in temperatures so severe it sometimes caused the River Thames to freeze over.

Now, new analysis by University College London (UCL) argues that so many people were slaughtered or died of disease that the amount of agricultural land dramatically reduced, in turn sucking carbon dioxide (CO²) from the atmosphere.

Known as the “Great Dying”, the upheavals following the first contact with Europeans in 1492 is thought to have slashed the population of 60 million living across the…

Whether it’s true or not is another matter. Can’t say I’m entirely sold on it. For I’m pretty sure that we generally start it off, the little ice age, before 1492.

However, entirely willing to believe it contributed…..

A problem with battery powered civilisation

There’s one thing we’d dearly like to know, one thing that doesn’t even get discussed here:

Ion age: why the future will be battery powered

The variable nature of wind and solar power means storing energy is a huge part of the fight to mitigate climate change

Our iiportant question being, what’s the total CO2-e emissions from the entire lifecycle when we’ve a renewables and battery powered system? Are those emissions lower or higher than a coal fired system? Than a natural gas one?

It would be reasonable enough to conclude less than coal I’d guess. But than natural gas? Do recall that the Severn Barrage didn’t quite manage that….

Umm, why?

Parliament must “seriously consider” levying a tax on meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help to render the farming industry carbon neutral, the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, is urging.

She will say on Friday that a meat tax in the UK could be offset for more sustainable meat producers, such as organic livestock farmers, through more money for sustainable agriculture schemes.

Don’t organic cows burp just as much?

Ghastly, horrible, nonsense

I have changed what I eat because of the now overwhelming evidence of global environmental damage caused by meat and dairy production. It produces more climate-warming emissions than all cars, trains, ships and planes combined. If the world’s diet doesn’t change, we simply can’t beat climate change.

Sigh.

This is an invention of those who would change our diets anyway. Look back to the basic emissions pathways underlying everything. Standard technological advance and economic growth – the A1T scenario – leave climate change as a trivial problem to be ignored. We really don’t need radical anything – and we’ve already done more than enough to bump technology over to this pathway anyway.

They’re lying obviously

A report based on science from the Met Office and around the world sets out a range of climate scenarios over the next century to help homes and businesses plan for the future.

Even in the lowest-emission scenario, average annual temperatures are expected to be up to 2.3 degrees Celsius (36.14°F) higher by the end of the century.

In the highest-emissions scenario, summer temperatures could be up to 5.4C (41.72°F) higher by 2070 and winters up to 4.2C (39.56°F) higher.

36 oF? I think not.

But also that higher estimate depends upon the idea that RCP 8.5 will happen. Which it won’t. For we really do know this one thing about climate change, that RCP 8.5 will not happen. We’ve already done the work to make sure that it won’t.

Yes, I know, you’ll tell me that I shouldn’t be taking any of it seriously. But still, it does annoy that people continue to alarm us with something we know, absolutely, isn’t going to happen.

Yes, a carbon tax

Efficiency isn’t just some economists’, or accountants’, insistence on doing things cheaply. As Stern himself notes, if we do this inefficiently then we’ll avert less of that warming. The more resources we devote to growing mushrooms the fewer we’ll be able to expend upon the real problem. The more you worry about global warming the more you should be pushing for the most efficient solution — market forces properly incentivised — and the further you’d like politicians from the subject.

That, unfortunately, is not how things have worked out. The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that those most insistent that something must be done are those most insistent that the wrong something is done. That isn’t quite the way we’d hope to deal with the greatest threat to our civilisation. Or even the manner we’d like to deal with any problem at all.

Now that we’ve made the mistake of trying those centralised plans, can we get on with solving that climate change problem? Stick on the carbon tax and allow market forces to chew through the problem? As Hayek would have told us to, as Stern actually did insist, as the manner we’ve splashed the cash so far tells us we should have done.