Climate change policies

[PTK]

This just doesn't make scientific sense, sorry. Net zero is the culmination of a process. The process involves cutting emissions. The idea is we get to a point where the level of carbon dioxide is no longer increasing.

There are ways of reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such as tree planting and more experimental methods of carbon removal. But there is no point doing this unless you are also cutting emissions as rapidly as possible.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for.

What doesn't make scientific sense?
Net Zero is promoted as though it is the solution, but it is not. It should not at all be an end point. We need to argue for going net negative.

 

[StoneRoad]

What doesn't make scientific sense?
Net Zero is promoted as though it is the solution, but it is not. It should not at all be an end point. We need to argue for going net negative.

Yes, Net Negative is required in the longer term - but going via Net Zero is a suitable stage in the process.
But China and India [to give just two examples] are still increasing emissions at this time.
Note that there was a noticeable decrease in smog / emissions during the covid lockdowns - so reductions can be achieved, when the will / regulation is there.

Trees and Peat bogs are both important carbon stores, but re-foresting and un-draining areas are slow processes.

 

[lazythursday]

What doesn't make scientific sense?
Net Zero is promoted as though it is the solution, but it is not. It should not at all be an end point. We need to argue for going net negative.

OK - now I see where you are coming from, which seems quite different to your views from a while back.

Yes, I agree in principle - but good luck with that. We don't really know how to go net negative right now. Negative emissions technologies are in their infancy (and some hugely controversial, such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)). I agree net zero by 2050 is a badly formed goal, but because the focus should be on rapid reductions now, year on year, with clear carbon budgets, not on reaching a balance at some arbitrary date in the future. Net negative just feels like a complete pipedream right now.

 

[PTK]

OK - now I see where you are coming from, which seems quite different to your views from a while back.

Yes, I agree in principle - but good luck with that. We don't really know how to go net negative right now. Negative emissions technologies are in their infancy (and some hugely controversial, such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)). I agree net zero by 2050 is a badly formed goal, but because the focus should be on rapid reductions now, year on year, with clear carbon budgets, not on reaching a balance at some arbitrary date in the future. Net negative just feels like a complete pipedream right now.

I have not changed my views.

 

[lazythursday]

I have not changed my views.

Well in the past you were very unclear about explaining your views. I had you down as a climate sceptic because you didn't appear to agree with the priority of stopping new fossil fuel extraction.

 

[PTK]

A commitment to establishing New Zero by 2050 is a commitment to increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of the Earth, and therefore a commitment to more warming. The aim should be to produce less greenhouse gas than is absorbed, and therefore reduce the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[lazythursday]

The aim should be to produce less greenhouse gas than is absorbed, and therefore reduce the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But to get there, you have to go via net zero.

So what are you saying, that the net zero target should be brought forward? What policies are you proposing?

 

[PTK]

But to get there, you have to go via net zero.

So what are you saying, that the net zero target should be brought forward? What policies are you proposing?

I am saying that the target should be net negative. I am saying that net zero by 2050 is to aim for more warming

 

[lazythursday]

I am saying that the target should be net negative. I am saying that net zero by 2050 is to aim for more warming

Yes. But this is a thread about climate change policies. What policies would you put in place to achieve this and when would your net negative target be for?

Any policy or target is going to cause more warming. You can't go zero emissions overnight.

 

[StoneRoad]

Policies I could get behind ...

encourage :- WFH, clean industry & transport, more actual recycling, tree planting, re-creating peat bogs / salt marsh.

discourage :- long distance air travel, over-long transport chains, deforestation/de-hedging, fast fashion / dumping, use of plastic unless recycling, non-recyclable / single-use plastic, wasted energy/water etc
e2a - built in obsolescence & un-needed "minor" upgrades / re-launching models.
It's wasteful to collect glass for recycling and then use it as aggregate !

 

[PTK]

It might be a good idea if companies had to make products that lasted. Why are people buying new mobile phones every couple of years?

 

[WouldBe]

It might be a good idea if companies had to make products that lasted. Why are people buying new mobile phones every couple of years?

Because the spec changes. Quite a few people around who will upgrade as soon as a new version is out even if there's negligible difference.

 

[PTK]

Because the spec changes. Quite a few people around who will upgrade as soon as a new version is out even if there's negligible difference.

If the company did not alter the spec, then people would not be disposing of perfectly good phones.

 

[stavros]

I notice walking around in this cold snap, once it's dark not everyone has their curtains shut, despite clearly being in. Leaving aside privacy, and assuming their heating is on in whatever form, this must be the cheapest way of insulating their homes. Some kind of promotion to that extent would be a cheap way to save a small amount of energy in a socially acceptable way.

 

[PTK]

Net Zero has been redefined.​

“We need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and scale up our ability to get rid of it permanently. We can’t take credit for the absorption of carbon which would happen naturally – the carbon we remove must be in addition to that.”

Professor Myles Allen, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, known as “the physicist behind net zero”.

Allen is the lead author of a study by a group of researchers who point out that the original concept of “net zero” that they developed 15 years ago has been replaced by a new definition.

Net Zero meant that, for every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, one tonne would be sequestered. Now, governments are defining sequestration as including the capture of carbon dioxide by natural pre-existing “sinks” such as forests and oceans. This new definition of net zero will not reduce amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A country like the UK, with large historical emissions and limited natural sinks, has implicitly committed other countries to maintain natural sinks for decades after UK emissions reach net zero. This is not currently addressed in climate talks.

“We are already counting on forests and oceans to mop up our past emissions, most of which came from burning stuff we dug out of the ground. We can’t expect them to compensate for future emissions as well. By mid-century, any carbon that still comes out of the ground will have to go back down, to permanent storage. That’s Geological Net Zero” says Allen.

Redefining net zero will not stop global warming, new study shows | University of Oxford