Climate change doom

[Ein Heldenleben]

Re global warning, surely our global fate hangs on the policies and actions of the US, China, India etc
Our commitments are to reductions by 2030 but what effect will they have on the global problem largely arising from the policies and actions of those whose eyes are fixed, if fixed at all, on 2035 or even 2050?
Is the 'leadership' we are giving of any real significance? It feels like the cause is lost.

Uk carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of global emissions. Nevertheless it is important that countries like us take the moral lead. Particularly since both China and India are convinced they are “owed “ the equivalent of the carbon emissions we produced during our industrial heyday. We have been either quite canny or utterly reckless (depending on your point of view) in outsourcing our manufacturing carbon emissions to countries like China and Germany. Unfortunately the waiter has now turned up with the bill.

[oddoneout]

Uk carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of global emissions. Nevertheless it is important that countries like us take the moral lead. Particularly since both China and India are convinced they are “owed “ the equivalent of the carbon emissions we produced during our industrial heyday. We have been either quite canny or utterly reckless (depending on your point of view) in outsourcing our manufacturing carbon emissions to countries like China and Germany. Unfortunately the waiter has now turned up with the bill.

I've never subscribed to the "oh but they do it, and worse" approach. I suspect it is a result of upbringing but it smacks too much of toddler tantrums and playground spats, and in adults a refusal to accept responsibility.
This country had and continues to have a very big part to play in why the likes of China and India are major polluters now, and we are in no position to be morally superior (nor about any other matter now frankly, but that's another debate) especially if we do nothing to alter our part in the continued problem - such as the manufacturing outsourcing you mention, or the refusal of government to come up with(and implement) sensible, joined up policies to tackle such issues as energy supply, over-consumption, waste, unregulated polluters etc.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, no need to invoke climate change - plundering and polluting our life support system, Earth, is unsustainable and is reason enough to do things differently.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I've never subscribed to the "oh but they do it, and worse" approach. I suspect it is a result of upbringing but it smacks too much of toddler tantrums and playground spats, and in adults a refusal to accept responsibility.
This country had and continues to have a very big part to play in why the likes of China and India are major polluters now, and we are in no position to be morally superior (nor about any other matter now frankly, but that's another debate) especially if we do nothing to alter our part in the continued problem - such as the manufacturing outsourcing you mention, or the refusal of government to come up with(and implement) sensible, joined up policies to tackle such issues as energy supply, over-consumption, waste, unregulated polluters etc.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, no need to invoke climate change - plundering and polluting our life support system, Earth, is unsustainable and is reason enough to do things differently.

A good start would be spending the HS2 money on insulation, double glazing, improved urban public transport , solar, wind and investment in next generation energy.

[gradus]

I take the moral arguments about our culpability because we polluted and exploited so much in the past but those points don't address the fact that our puny 'green' changes won't change anything much on the global scale, and why anyone should think that we can teach moral lessons to other countries given our industrial track record defeats me.

[Retune]

The UKHSA data on covid vaccine efficacy ( the “ best “ we have) , was fiddled beyond practical use , esp re two elements, the total unvaccinated population and mis- categorisation after vaccination. It is a great pity that whoever it was made the decisions saw fit to first fiddle the data then decided to stop the reporting.

As for “ Independent researchers” there is every reason, historically, to take some sceptical standpoints.

re covid, I did some of my “research “ on the well known conspiracy site the BHF, whose calculator told me in spring 2020 that I had a 1 in 2000 chance of hospitalisation if I contracted covid, and 1 in 8000 of death. I took what I needed to from that . And that wasn’t what the govt would have wanted me to.

There is some terrible misinformation out there on social media, but lets not pretend that the govt and other interests , including people in academia and commercial scientific research , are always whiter than white .Everybody cherry picks facts to suit their argument, naturally.

The vaccine data were not 'fiddled' and similar conclusions were reached in other countries, though you may have read differently from antivaxers on social media and professional Covid contrarians in media that value page hits over getting to the truth. Protection from fatal disease by the best vaccines is of the order of 95%, and the risks of serious adverse events are extremely low (lower than from some medical interventions we take for granted, and much, much lower than from everyday activities like using the roads).

I don't know exactly what risk calculator you used, the assumptions it was based on, or what input you fed it, but a risk of ~1 in 8000 would likely only be correct for a fit and healthy person in their late teens. For someone in (say) their 40s, the risk would be an order of magnitude higher, and for someone in their 60s around two orders of magnitude higher, based on mainstream estimates (and not, for example, the discredited analysis of John Ioannidis). One risk calculator I saw at the time also factored in the risk of contracting the virus, which was of course relatively low during lockdown and just after (though it would rise dramatically later in the year). But it would be misleading to use a figure based on this for decisions about vaccination, because eventually everyone will encounter the virus.

It's all very well to be 'sceptical', but this scepticism needs to be applied especially to those making claims that are not supported by the scientific consensus and are contrary to standard medical advice. For every Galileo making groundbreaking discoveries outside established theory there are thousands of cranks, and most of them are on Twitter and YouTube these days (and are often making a good living from telling people what they want to believe). The same applies, of course, to the climate change 'sceptics'.

[teamsaint]

The vaccine data were not 'fiddled' and similar conclusions were reached in other countries, though you may have read differently from antivaxers on social media and professional Covid contrarians in media that value page hits over getting to the truth. Protection from fatal disease by the best vaccines is of the order of 95%, and the risks of serious adverse events are extremely low (lower than from some medical interventions we take for granted, and much, much lower than from everyday activities like using the roads).

I don't know exactly what risk calculator you used, the assumptions it was based on, or what input you fed it, but a risk of ~1 in 8000 would likely only be correct for a fit and healthy person in their late teens. For someone in (say) their 40s, the risk would be an order of magnitude higher, and for someone in their 60s around two orders of magnitude higher, based on mainstream estimates (and not, for example, the discredited analysis of John Ioannidis). One risk calculator I saw at the time also factored in the risk of contracting the virus, which was of course relatively low during lockdown and just after (though it would rise dramatically later in the year). But it would be misleading to use a figure based on this for decisions about vaccination, because eventually everyone will encounter the virus.

It's all very well to be 'sceptical', but this scepticism needs to be applied especially to those making claims that are not supported by the scientific consensus and are contrary to standard medical advice. For every Galileo making groundbreaking discoveries outside established theory there are thousands of cranks, and most of them are on Twitter and YouTube these days (and are often making a good living from telling people what they want to believe). The same applies, of course, to the climate change 'sceptics'.

I explicitly mentioned the calculator I used. I really don’t care if you believe me , or think the risk is different to what the BHF said it was back then ( which had nothing to do with the actual risk of getting covid of course ,) but we all have to take our data from somewhere. I chose to check what Boris, Jurgen Klopp and the council , ( not to mention the drugs companies ,who lets face it had pretty big incentives one way and another) were telling me on as reputable sources as I could find.
The UKHSA data on efficacy quite clearly was fiddled in the ways mentioned,and then discontinued. You may see it differently, but as you are well aware, data, EG on all- cause mortality is easily manipulated, and the govt / UKHSA had every reason to do exactly that.

Oh yes, and when medical “advice” turns into coercion , then yes, I have serious issues with accepting it unquestioned.
During the covid era I found myself, for the first time in my white , male, heterosexual middle class , middle aged life, on the wrong side of a fence. I learned a hell of a lot from that experience,
You can dismiss my questions and scepticism all you like. The work is done. Trust has to be earned back. There is a very long way to go.

[Retune]

I explicitly mentioned the calculator I used. I really don’t care if you believe me , or think the risk is different to what the BHF said it was back then ( which had nothing to do with the actual risk of getting covid of course ,) but we all have to take our data from somewhere. I chose to check what Boris, Jurgen Klopp and the council , ( not to mention the drugs companies ,who lets face it had pretty big incentives one way and another) were telling me on as reputable sources as I could find.
The UKHSA data on efficacy quite clearly was fiddled in the ways mentioned,and then discontinued. You may see it differently, but as you are well aware, data, EG on all- cause mortality is easily manipulated, and the govt / UKHSA had every reason to do exactly that.

Oh yes, and when medical “advice” turns into coercion , then yes, I have serious issues with accepting it unquestioned.
During the covid era I found myself, for the first time in my white , male, heterosexual middle class , middle aged life, on the wrong side of a fence. I learned a hell of a lot from that experience,
You can dismiss my questions and scepticism all you like. The work is done. Trust has to be earned back. There is a very long way to go.

I've replied to this in the Covid thread, as we are getting rather off-topic here.

[oddoneout]

I take the moral arguments about our culpability because we polluted and exploited so much in the past but those points don't address the fact that our puny 'green' changes won't change anything much on the global scale, and why anyone should think that we can teach moral lessons to other countries given our industrial track record defeats me.

I accept that, but not as a reason to do nothing, which is what seems to go with the "it's all their fault"(ie China et al are bigger contributors to climate change activity) line of thinking.

[Retune]

As a species, we really aren't very good at putting 2 and 2 together, are we?

[Serial_Apologist]

As a species, we really aren't very good at putting 2 and 2 together, are we?

At this rate of U-turns Sunak will soon be catching up with Starmer.

[Dave2002]

This article is interesing - to a point - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../bnlm-j29.html

However, blaming the whole of the current situation on a capitalist system and that this is against the interests of the "working man" seems not at all well argued.

Yes - there does seem to be a problem - possibly a very big one, but isn't that likely to have happened anyway even without "capitalism"?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I don't like to depress anyone but I've always felt that we will fail. Not enough people care about climate change to do something about it. HS2, gas-guzzling 4x4's, power tools out in back gardens, it all contributes and accumulates .

HS2 isn’t in the same category. It aims to discourage internal air travel (and the use is gas-guzzling 4x4s). There are those who look for excuses to decry the project - and it seems that their noise is working, so we’ll not solve the basic problem.

[oddoneout]

HS2 isn’t in the same category. It aims to discourage internal air travel (and the use is gas-guzzling 4x4s). There are those who look for excuses to decry the project - and it seems that their noise is working, so we’ll not solve the basic problem.

Regardless of what the original stated purpose were, the continued refusal to improve northern rail infrastructure, which was supposed to be an aim(levelling up I think they called it), rather gives the lie to the propaganda.
Whether environmental campaigners genuinely affected progress is questionable; over the last 13 years government has not demonstrated that such concerns are important in this context or any other. Now that any such concerns are to be ditched altogether, in favour of GE vote winning, the net zero aims of HS2 cease to be relevant, if indeed they ever were.

[Dave2002]

HS2 isn’t in the same category. It aims to discourage internal air travel (and the use is gas-guzzling 4x4s). There are those who look for excuses to decry the project - and it seems that their noise is working, so we’ll not solve the basic problem.

There are several problems with HS2 as I see it.

1. It is not ambitious enough. To compete with air travel times to locations such as Glasgow and Edinburgh should be of the order of 2 hours. That is probably infeasible, though 2.5 hours for the journey might be possible. It could certainly be of interest if all the other time delays associated with air travel - check in - baggage check in and collection at the destination etc.

2. It is expensive, and diverts funds away from possible improvements in rail and bus travel in the North of England. The so-called Northern Powerhouse is a joke. Comparing 2-4 carriage trains which run infrequently from side to side across the country with 8-12 carriage trains which often run with a schedule of 2 or 4 trains an hour in the area round London is just a pathetic comparison.
As for trains to London from Woking and back, there may be trains every few minutes along that route. In the north - no way. Even longer trains would help, so that passengers could get seats.

3. It seems essentially to be London centric. Nobody really cares about getting to Birmingham, or Manchester - an assumption seems to be being made that much of the passenger traffic will be "commuter" traffic into London. Given that now we have at last finally realised that many people who work in offices don't need to travel in to an office every day - what's the point?

4. It only serves one or two routes. Originally it was planned to serve more, but now it's been cut back it doesn't even do that. A slight modification - for example using the mathematics of Steiner trees, could have produced benefits to other areas - for example the area round Oxford or Bicester.


5. It should have started from the north, and worked south.

I'm not fundamentally against HS2, but it's a vanity project which diverts funds from other areas, both in transport and other important areas of infrastructure. Probably any modifications to it will eventually lessen all the goals and benefits which it's supposed to provide. It will be late in delivery, over budget and factors such as not having curves in the line or services to possible stopping points along the line, will ultimately show that it might just as well have been built to serve slightly different routes, and to serve communities other than at the end points. Shaving 5 minutes off each journey is not going to help if in the end it turns out that trains will not be able to run to the fairly tight timetables proposed anyway.

6. I almost missed one - it should connect to the Channel Tunnel routes, though I suppose that Brexit has now made any thought that we could get on a train in [say] Liverpool or Manchester - or even Edinburgh or Glasgow - and be in Lille or Paris within 4 or 5 hours a total non-starter.

[Serial_Apologist]

This article is interesing - to a point - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/202.../bnlm-j29.html

However, blaming the whole of the current situation on a capitalist system and that this is against the interests of the "working man" seems not at all well argued.

Yes - there does seem to be a problem - possibly a very big one, but isn't that likely to have happened anyway even without "capitalism"?

You don't however say in what way not well argued. I would say it is, leaving aside the two brief fatuous references to the West supporting Ukraine. I put my case in the post preceding your, Dave.