Would be good if these schemes were audited by some appropriate body.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.
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.
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.The IPC report makes sober reading this morning.
A somewhat sceptical acquaintance commented that "he (Vallance and all the other experts) can't even forecast covid cases within a factor of 4 correctly a month out but he/they can accurately model the earth's climate 50 years from now...".Interesting to see Patrick Vallance having his say. The IPCC report is clear: nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe | Patrick Vallance
Not a hard and fast denier but someone highly intelligent/well educated who is instinctively mistrustful of authority!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.
Appropriately qualified scientists do count as authorities but not in the way you infer, I suspect. By which I mean, we should rightly question authority but listen to authorities.Not a hard and fast denier but someone highly intelligent/well educated who is instinctively mistrustful of authority!
Could I respectfully ask that you provide examples of this 'extreme scaremongering'.I also don’t think the extreme scaremongering is helpful,
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?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.
Except we won't be able to eat or heat, implies the report, unless we:Looks like we might be OK....
UK and Ireland among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, study suggestsResearchers say a worldwide breakdown could happen "within a few decades" and have identified five countries most likely to withstand future threats.news.sky.com