NWR Climate change

Space costing money is an argument in its favour. My main concern is that these trees may be part of a forest that was going to be planted anyway (eg for paper) - but the owners realised that they could earn extra money by calling it "carbon offset".
Yes, there may be an element of this out there, but if you're planting with the intention of then using the wood for timber, paper or fuel, it won't really count as a proper offset, because you'll be returning a significant proportion of the carbon to the atmosphere. The better examples are reforesting cleared land that can be then left to its own devices.
 
Yes, there may be an element of this out there, but if you're planting with the intention of then using the wood for timber, paper or fuel, it won't really count as a proper offset, because you'll be returning a significant proportion of the carbon to the atmosphere. The better examples are reforesting cleared land that can be then left to its own devices.
Would be good if these schemes were audited by some appropriate body.

Maybe they are?!


I do hope that QAS are not-for-profit to keep them honest, but I'm wondering if someone should audit them!
 
It's some pretty scary shit. As I may have said before, I've spent decades reading reports and writing stories about climate change and the one recurring theme is that things are happening more quickly than scientists expected. There has been talk for ages about the possibility of the Gulf Stream shutting down, but it has always been a 'sometime after 2100' sort of thing, not a 'perhaps in a decade or two' sort of thing.
 
It's some pretty scary shit. As I may have said before, I've spent decades reading reports and writing stories about climate change and the one recurring theme is that things are happening more quickly than scientists expected. There has been talk for ages about the possibility of the Gulf Stream shutting down, but it has always been a 'sometime after 2100' sort of thing, not a 'perhaps in a decade or two' sort of thing.
 
When the ocean circulation starts to get properly messed up, all bets are off. As much as the climate has been going haywire because of a bit of added heat to the system, screwing around with the ocean currents and the heat transport and so forth is going to have some very unpredictable - and more than likely not very pleasant - consequences.
 
The IPC report makes sober reading this morning. Seems fairly unavoidable now that many wines areas are going to continue to see temperatures rise in ways that question whether many European regions will be able to produce wines with as much freshness and verve as they used to. Obviously Thai change is rather less important than the vast challenges we face as a species, especially those living in some of the poorest least technologically advanced countries.
 
The IPC report makes sober reading this morning.
Yes, but a cursory glance at much of the national press should disabuse us of the notion that the message is finally getting through. Look, for example, at the comments below Dominic Lawson's more or less unhinged article in the Mail today Why is BBC a pulpit for eco-fanatics and their doomsday climate cult? to see what an admittedly self-selecting but very large constituency still believes about climate change-that it is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the 'woke' BBC.
 
Is that acquaintance a climate change denier, Dan? it is on the face of it a reasonable comment but only if one fails to take into consideration the quite overwhelming scientific consensus.
I don't think anyone claims to be able accurately to model the climate 50 years hence, but it is very easy to predict that on the current trajectory things will not be going all that marvellously at all.
 
Is that acquaintance a climate change denier, Dan? it is on the face of it a reasonable comment but only if one fails to take into consideration the quite overwhelming scientific consensus.
I don't think anyone claims to be able accurately to model the climate 50 years hence, but it is very easy to predict that on the current trajectory things will not be going all that marvellously at all.
Not a hard and fast denier but someone highly intelligent/well educated who is instinctively mistrustful of authority!
 
I don’t think it’s helpful to see everything as a dichotomy, and this ‘black or white’ terminology is used to shut down debate & create division.

We see these opposing labels all the time now:

Remain Bedwetters vs Xenophobic Brexiteers
BLM Marxists vs Racist bigots
Out of touch woke liberals vs Tory scum
Zero Covid cult vs Anti-vaxxers
Eco loons vs Climate change deniers

The “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” mentality is tearing society apart - there is far more nuance than that both in reality & in people’s thoughts/opinions.

You’re never going to convince somebody by labelling them or abusing them. If you want to make a difference you need to embrace everyone and be prepared to have a proper debate.

For me, the question is how do we slow the man-made portion of climate change, and what can we do to adapt? The reality is that the UK has already cut its carbon emissions by 35% over the past 20 years - the best performance of any G20 nation & only contributes 1% of the world’s carbon emissions now. Of course it’s more complex than that when you look at imports etc which have replaced manufacturing but the likes of China, USA & Germany are much bigger culprits.

I agree that we can’t just blame others & do nothing but I think it’s fair to ask how the proposed solutions would impact quality of life, compared with the impact they would have on the climate.

I also don’t think the extreme scaremongering is helpful, and the modelling which is presented as fact by the media. Bear in mind we’ve been warned continuously by scientists over the past 40-50 years that the world is on the brink of collapse for one climatic reason or another. The likes of Extinction Rebellion would have us shut down capitalism, impoverish us all and send us back to their dream of the stone age on the basis of these ‘scientific’ predictions.

We simply can’t just eliminate the use of fossil fuels for energy - the transition will take decades. The Greens have spent the past few decades opposing emission free nuclear power, but hopefully with technological advances, the conversion of coal to oil & gas, and more nuclear power, we can limit climate change to tolerable levels. But China & India are probably the places to start because without them on board we have no hope. An ever increasing global population is another significant obstacle, but that's thanks to medical advances.

Even so it might be worth putting as much time, money & effort into how we can adapt to climate change as we do into preventing it if it’s as inevitable as many of the above articles suggest.
 
Last edited:
I also don’t think the extreme scaremongering is helpful,
Could I respectfully ask that you provide examples of this 'extreme scaremongering'.

Even so it might be worth putting as much time, money & effort into how we can adapt to climate change as we do into preventing it if it’s as inevitable as many of the above articles suggest.
I think you'll find that it would be significantly cheaper to cut carbon emissions than try to 'adapt'. Renewables are now the cheapest form of energy available to us and adaptation/mitigation would involve some pretty significant infrastructure to deal with sea-level rise. And how exactly do you 'adapt' to the loss of vast swathes of farming land to extreme heat and drought?
 
If you take this seriously the only two states that matter are the US and China. There needs to be a treaty between them laying out C02 non-proliferation rules. Same mindset as nuclear weapons created 50-odd years ago. Then everyone else will get into line. If they act, the problem at a global level is addressable. If they don't, it really just isn't and it will be all about mitigation.
 
Top