A guy from the Far Right party created a fundraising for the Cop, raise €m1.6 while the mother of the kid got €k600 on hers, so she layer up. Ongoing procedure.
In the long term the west will have no choice but to start creating their own supply chains, however that’s going to take many years to do. Meanwhile, China already has independent end-to-end supply chains and that means Chinese companies will have a huge advantage producing tech products using these rare metals giving China a huge market advantage.
I feel so bad for the people of Belarus. Just a few years ago, they came so close to ousting Lukashenko, and now, of course, the crackdowns are worse than ever.
Even if we stopped all use of fossil fuels overnight, there’s a lot of ‘baked in’ warming. This isn’t ‘instead of’ it’s ‘in addition to’ when it comes to halting warming.
Yep, it takes about 30 years to see the effects, what we’re dealing with right now is the 1993 emissions, if we stopped using all fossil fuels right this instant, things would continue to get worse well into the 2050s.
This is the world that you know: the world as it was at the end of the 20th century. It exists now only as a part of a neural-interactive simulation that we call the Matrix… We have only bits and pieces of information, but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early 21st century, all of mankind was united in celebration.
We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI: a singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines. We don’t know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power, and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.
Wasn’t that specifically in reference to the machines? So the viewer knows that they weren’t relying on fossil fuels and access to sunlight would be their weakness.
The original plot of the movie was that humans were not an energy source but the computing substrate; that all those brains were networked together as a meat-based platform for the AIs to run on, which is why Neo was able to change reality in the Matrix, because he was able to override the programming for the chunk running on him at any given time, just by thinking it.
But the fucking mouthbreathers they got in for their focus groups didn’t get the concept, so they had to rewrite it, demoting humans to freaking lemon-batteries and making a mockery of the whole thing.
I can’t blame the focus group participants in that scenario. Maybe using brains as a computing platform is only confusing to morons (which I doubt), but that doesn’t mean they needed to leap to a flatly nonsensical alternative.
I’ve heard this one commonly suggested as a “that would have been better” but was it actually the original script? Is there a source on this?
Yeah, I saw a link to a study that modeled outcomes within the next fre decades where acidification kills enough marine life and favors the reproduction of other microbes. Something about either low oxygen in the oceans and/or the atmosphere, or maybe a dangerous increase in stmospheric toxins resulting from that.
I was reading about how carbon capture from the air is going to be a trillion dollar industry. Just SMH. It’s so much easier to not emit than it is to recapture. But since we’ll never get China and India off of coal, I guess we have to do something.
Asking other countries to get off coal and blaming them for climate change is the most entitled wicked shit Western countries do. Yeah we looted you, fucked you over and tried dismantling your democracy for years. Oh we also polluted the world like it is today because of our greedy ways and sold our soul to fossil fuel companies… but you stay poor and don’t use your resources to develop yourself.
I did, and so should everyone else that claims to want to do something about the climate catastrophe.
Artificially grown meat is quickly becoming more and more viable, it's not like it will be impossible forever to have a steak.
I also stopped eating meat and also for climate first, but I wouldn’t say a person is hypocritical not to either. The problem is not with individual consumers, our impacts are pretty much nonexistent on a problem of this scope. The problem is on our failures of regulators, and of grassroots organizations to enact change. If we want to have impact individually it’s not by eating beans, it’s by [redacted]. Or at least by organizing disruptive protest.
And you just won’t be able to convince enough people to stop eating meat to stop animals from being reared and slaughtered. Humans have been eating meat since before we were homo sapiens. Expecting the masses to adopt a radically different diet is foolish.
Other problems with your post aside, you think it's good enough to emit less but not worth it to actively invest in getting the excess carbons out? The problems they are solving overlap, but they are not the same set of problems.
The energy required to take carbon out of the atmosphere is at best, double what it took to put it in the atmosphere in the first place. There’s seriously strong economic reasons that this is a bad idea.
There are hard limits on recapture efficiency. The only way to make it remove more than it creates is to use energy like geothermal. Even then, the production of a carbon capture facility generates enough emissions that it would take years of constantly running, and you’d only ever reach it if you’re using 10% clean energy to power it.
We’re at the point where we can’t prevent the consequences of climate change. We can only prevent it from getting worse and mitigating the effects. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions this second, we’d still be suffering for years.
It’s worthwhile for us to look at technologies which can reverse our existing impact to some degree. Finding a way to safely and intelligently remove carbon from the atmosphere may be more expensive, but it has the possibility of fixing our climate much sooner than otherwise, and that’s worth it.
It’s important though that we don’t use it as an excuse to stay the same. The cost of doing this “cleaning” needs to be factored into fossil fuel price so transitioning away from it accelerates. Creating some additional cushion while we continue to do that would be very beneficial.
I’ve already accepted we’re fucked. There’s some really good ideas out there, and we know exactly where the majority of the carbon is coming from (I posted a graph in here, the biggest contributor is industry) but legislation isn’t being put in place to target the biggest emitters. Instead, we’re supposed to buy our way out of it by buying electric cars and building more things ie making more industry, when we should be doing the opposite.
You should check out some of Nick Johnson’s videos. There are so many empty, decaying houses in the US. And yet, more houses are being built. It’s astonishing.
Emitting less is possible NOW. Removing carbon already in the air isn’t even possible yet. ClimateTown showed this in a recent vid. All efforts should be towards what’s possible and effective now rather than towards what’s really expensive, not very effective and may may be possible in the future.
It’s difficult to get China and India off coal because they’re doing most of the world’s manufacturing and some processes are currently impossible without it. But ‘we’ exported manufacturing to Asia and ‘we’ buy the products the coal is used for. ‘We’ don’t get to wriggle out of responsibility by pretending that a couple of low and middle income countries are somehow responsible for ‘our’ excessive consumption.
What fuck up? If we were doing our own manufacturing, we’d be using the coal instead. We just wouldn’t be able to blame other countries for our consumption.
China's usage of coal is huge, but it's proportiojn has dropped from 75+% in 1990 to around 55%. It's slow progress - it may accelerate. The problem is the rest of the world exports so much of its manufacturing requirements to China.
But since we’ll never get China and India off of coal, I guess we have to do something.
This is a bad and uninformed take.
Per person, emissions in both China and India are still substantially lower than almost all developed countries. India’s per person emissions are less than one-quarter of the global average, and roughly one-tenth of those of the US. Close to a quarter of all carbon emissions come from manufacturing products which are exported and consumed in other countries. Textiles and clothes exported from India and south Asia account for over 4% of global emissions.
Labelling India and China as the chief villains of COP26 is a convenient narrative. The financial aid which rich countries promised yet failed to deliver as part of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 was supposed to help developing countries dump coal for cleaner sources of energy. And while the world berated India and China for weakening the Glasgow Climate Pact’s coal resolution, few questioned the fossil fuel projects being floated in developed nations, like the UK’s Cambo oilfield and the Line 3 oil pipeline between Canada and the US.
And that's without even going back to look at imperialism and its impacts on those countries, and why they're now having to play catch up with the west (who not only did our fair share of polluting during our own industrial revolutions, but still continue to do so pretty much freely), mostly to provide for the west.
This, like the overpopulation myth, are nothing more than racist distractions created by the rich and powerful to get us to blame "others" rather than look for who is really at fault - them (Edit to clarify: and by them I mean all obscenely rich and the governments they control, faux communists included).
You may be surprised to learn that I totally agree with you. In my extremely brief statement I did not treat the nuances of this issue. I think the developing world has every moral right to pursue the same industrialization path as western nations have. I believe our world economy is driving their coal usage. I believe they are still relatively small as a contributor on a per capita basis.
However I also believe that they have less ability to transition to renewables and I expect them to pursue their right to lift their populations out of poverty. And so: we’re never going to get them off coal. With their huge populations, they will inevitably be top contributors as this process progresses. Therefore, we need to focus on mitigations as well as renewables, since this massive set of emissions appears to be non negotiable, and in fact we’d be hypocrites to try, as you point out. I would consider active mitigations the moral obligation of the developed world, and in fact that’s where air capture efforts are mainly occurring.
This isn’t racism, and playing that card in the face of these simple facts is a great way to get nowhere with the issue.
We're never going to "get them" off coal because we keep weaselling out of providing them with the support to do so after centuries of exploiting their people and resources for profits the size of which we can't even comprehend, not because of the size of their population, and not because they're top contributors, because as stated, neither of those are even true.
What we need to focus on is the fact that this is a global problem and that shirking and shifting responsibility to others only gains those making the profit more time to make more profit. We all breath the same goddamned air, and pretending like there are "us" and "them" in this mess is ridiculous beyond words.
As for that last part - no one is "playing a card" (seriously??), and while your intent might not be racist, the trope you are using, and its impact, are. You not being aware of this fact (or comfortable with it now that you are) doesn't change it.
Developing nations have an easier path to renewables. There is less resistance in building new infrastructure than in modifying existing infrastructure. You don’t have to deal with hundred year old equipment when you start with modern equipment.
The developed world owes its advanced state to the use of resources from the undeveloped world and damage to the shared environment.
The developed world should supply non fossil fuel power sources to the undeveloped world, as an investment in a cleaner future and a reparation payment.
Renewables might be able to handle the lesser load initially for developing areas, while small scale thorium or fusion reactors could be future high power options.
Chatterjee, S., & Huang, K. W. (2020). Unrealistic energy and materials requirement for direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nature communications, 11(1), 3287.
Western countries are just as guilty, if not more. We contributed terribly for several hundred years, and still today net carbon use is still increasing in developed countries. It’s just not increasing quite as much as before.
Yeah historically the United States has admitted the most carbon of any country to date. Other countries are having their industrial revolutions and we are hypocrites for criticizing them.
I totally agree. I made a very short and unqualified comment about the developing world’s inevitable contribution to climate change and I’ve been getting hung out to dry all day as an uneducated racist imperialist who doesn’t understand how much the west has contributed. I definitely DO. And there’s no changing the developed world’s past but I think we have the wealth and technology to transition to renewable energy and really lower emissions. I don’t think that developing nations have that ability necessarily and that’s all I meant to say. I think that no matter what the developing world does there is a huge load of carbon coming from developing nations, who have every right to industrialize and lift their people out of poverty. There’s no blame in that. It’s just a fact. So here in the west we might want to think about active capture in addition to reduction because we’ll likely need both. If western nations did all the harm up until now then it seems fair for us to shoulder the burden of active capture. My very brief comment didn’t properly address all these nuances, and I’ve been getting all kinds of hate for blaming climate change on developing countries, which I did not say and do not think. I guess it’s good to see people vigorously setting the record straight.
Not emitting is not that easy. We are in a transition period at the moment. Electric vehicles are here but we don’t have all the infrastructure needed to support them. Let alone the fact that battery tech is not developing as fast as we need it to.
Right now liquid fuels still have the advantage of greater energy density. If we could move to hydrogen fuels that would be cool, and we could repurpose existing petroleum facilities.
But who knows which way the tech is going to go. The only sure thing is that we are in for a wild ride one way or the other.
They power the machines used to gather materials. They power the machines that move those materials around the world to be turned into goods. They power moving those goods around the world to be sold. They power moving them again once they’ve been sold. And if we’re really lucky, they won’t use any more at that point.
The electricity you use. The gas in your car. The gas you use to heat your home or cook. The gas the Amazon van uses to get stuff from the warehouse to your door. The gas used by the semi truck to move stuff from one warehouse to another. The gas used by the cargo vessel to move stuff across the sea. The gas used for the mining equipment for the raw materials to make stuff. The gas used in the machines to turn materials into stuff.
Hell, the gas used to harvest crops and move them around and keep them cool, if need be.
Yes, we can and should be working on ways to divest from fossil fuels at every opportunity, but even if everyone was perfectly on board it wouldn’t happen overnight. It’ll take a few lifetimes at best.
As far as I can tell, we can either pay now for decarbonization, or we pay much more in the future for not having decarbonized. I know which one I would rather see.
Inactivist baloney. The first four are under your direct control and can be changed in weeks. The fifth and sixth will change themselves within 5 years as diesel will be uncompetitive. Half of international shipping is just fossil fuels, and half of what remains is short enough range that currently commercialising battery tech is sufficient. Mining equipment is already going solar because flying diesel to remote sites is ludicrously expensive.
Most of the remaining emissions can be eliminated by the global top 10% being ever so slightly less craven and greedy, 99% of red meat is nutritionally unnecessary and accounts for the majority of agricultural emissions and crops.
We can and must get most of the way there in a decade, and the only obstacles for doing so are people like you.
No. They’re there to support they own sense of moral virtue and righteousness. They’ve done far more harm for climate activism than good. Now climate activism is seen as some sort of annoying lefty pastime instead of the absolute urgent matter that it is.
This is the problem, people have been quietly talking about this issue and trying to convince people for decades. Barely anything has happened. Protest is supposed to be inconvenient. Not sure whether this type to protest works, but the quiet, passive way certainly doesn't.
Also worth pointing out the demand isn't to dissolve the oil and gas industry over night - but to suspend all new licensing and expansion of the industry which in this case... is 1) something the UK should be doing anyway to meet their climate commitments and 2) not that radical or unreasonable
Everyone knows protests are only effective if they don’t inconvenience anyone. Ideally, climate activism should be conducted from the inside of one’s closet. That’s how real change happens!
But why are they inconveniencing people who wanted to watch a tennis match and not idk… oil execs?
They get as much sympathy from me as I gave the truckers who protested outside my apartment building in Ottawa trying to convince me covid isnt real as if I had any decision making power
Yeah I agree - so why do they keep picking on us who have no power and not bringing their message to places that could have more impact with less fallout from those who agree with their cause but not the way they are going about it
I see that, but I still disagree. Protesting at Wimbledon isn’t “picking on us.” I couldn’t afford to go to a match even if I lived in the UK. One day alone is £75. In a country where people can’t afford food due to inflation. Protesting at Wimbledon is picking on them.
Idk even know what to make of this, First they did pay that money for a ticket to get on the court and in doing so supported the causes they are protesting against. Second, my whole argument is why are they not supporting working people in the fight against corporate greed when the working people want to support them but don’t see the value in merely causing a disturbance.
It’s not like others in the exact same movement haven’t figured out blocking roads and marches in the street ARE effective ways of putting the message out there - heck that’s exactly what was on the morning news in a segment about the movement prior to a separate segment about the Wimbledon ‘disturbances’…
Visibility. Targeting widely broadcasted events increases exposure of the cause.
Disruption: Ever heard of bread and circuses? Disrupting the circus rouses the general public, and a roused public is preferable to complacent one even if they are roused against the protestors themselves.
Pressure: Eventually, 2. forces the ruling class to take action. Again, even if the action is to silence or persecute the protestors it still serves to highlight the issue.
Symbolism: Shit is not fine. Most people want to pretend it is, and this kind of event is part of the illusion. Pulling aside the curtain is the right thing to do.
2 and 3 sound about where we are and even you admit it turns people against the protests - I’m against oil execs but it genuinely feels like these muppets arent on my side
Hate em - the whole reason I wish these protests targetted them more directly - burn their mansions and oil rigs down to the ground - then we shall tennis
I just want to say, I used to work at a fossil fuel company and one of the owner‘s family’s favourite sports to talk about was tennis, other two was golf and sailing.
Not sure if they also watched this one, but I can see a potential connection at least.
I get that but it’s starting to feel like these people would protest a kids birthday party if it meant the news would cover them .
I like seeing them on the streets doing their slow walks and getting in the way of corporations daily business but I can’t help but feel some of their actions are starting to alienate would-be supporters
I get that frustration as well that you express, since it disrupted something you enjoy and that isn‘t pleasant. However, as the inaction by those in power mounts, so do the frustrations of otherwise powerless protesters and that is something happening regardless of any negative counter reactions they may also provoke.
Already people have set themselves on fire in front of government buildings in the US for example and even that isn‘t yet the height of escalations that people can go to trying to get themselves to be heard. You can probably see why, as the climate reports we do hear get increasingly dark and various people and ecosystems on the planet experience negative effects.
Yeah - I guess it also feels like everyone knows something needs to be done by now but clearly if everyone actually did feel that way (I would hope at least) something would be done
Wimbledon is a sporting event which has a posh reputation, many seats being traditionally reserved for the upper and ruling classes. For example, on the centre court they have a area called the ‘Royal Box’. I would argue that there are probably quite a few oil execs in the audience.
Arguably the most impactful figure for climate change is Greta and I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction (maybe I’m wrong) and I believe she has done much more for the cause than getting on the news for causing a disturbance…
you like to bring up things that are beside the point, it does not matter if they have a problem with her for a real reason or a made up one, just that a lot of people discredit her because of her trying to bring attention to climate change. I was just responding to the "I can’t think of one instance where she has angered working people to gain traction"
Fair enough - I definitely should have been more precise.
I’m trying to criticize protests that actively alienate people who agree with the cause.
What I’m trying to understand is whether Just Stop Oil wants to inconvenience the average joe or whether they are targeting those with the power to make a difference? Imo, at times it feels like the former more than the latter.
If they were so dumb they saw a protest for something they agree with then stop because it's an annoyance then they did not give a shit about the issue in the first place.
Because tennis is an middle and upper class sport that thes people are likely to be attending, same as the glhorse races the other week. Doing it at London stadium when West Ham are at home would be a bit different.
Inconveniencing oil execs achieves absolutely nothing. You will never change someone’s opinion whose livelyhood depends on holding that opinion. The climate crisis will not be confronted by oil execs and any meaningful measures will not have their support. Protesting them is a waste of time.
The only way to achieve anything is to increase the immediate right-now cost of doing nothing over the cost of doing something. The cost in annoyance, money, time and for the people that can be persuaded, ie. the general public.
Ok - so one could say a ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance at events like this with the hope that it causes a change ? I can get behind that and believe that’s a rational reason to protest.
If all that’s true then my only real complaint is Just Stop Oil isn’t getting THAT message across effectively
You’re really missing the point. Nobody would say “the ‘goal’ per se is decreasing attendance to events like this”.
They did exactly what they set out to do. Make a public spectacle that people write news stories on and then the public talks about it. Normalizing discourses of these issues and drawing more attention and support to addressing them.
People who are already of the corporate lapdog mindset that any inconvenience to them about social, political, and environmental issues should just go away won’t have their minds changed. But nobody wants to change their minds, they understand these people won’t change.
But young people especially will be drawn to support causes and invoke change when they are constantly reminded that their future is being destroyed around them, instead of just buying into distractions and ignoring it all.
euronews.com
Oldest