Don't bother, Geordie.Could I respectfully ask that you provide examples of this 'extreme scaremongering'.
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?
I don't think it need be a choice between adaptation and emission reduction. Some changes do both e.g. switching to renewables.They could and should take a moral lead but if the 2 countries above don’t follow it will have been for nothing and the resources may have better been used for preparation/ mitigation.
Very well said. I do feel that we're like the proverbial frog being boiled alive. If there were some massive fireball in space hurtling towards us that was due to arrive in 20 years time, we'd probably get our act together and do something, but the insidious nature of climate change weakens and dilutes any efforts. Plenty of time to fiddle while Rome burns.The frightening thing.... it won't be gentle.
I'm afraid that I don't see us diverting the disaster. I hear far too many older people say that they cannot possibly change their lifestyle and won't be prevented from "living life to the fullest" or enjoying their hard-earned retirement by travelling the world, using their combustion cars for daily jaunts, spending time in two properties etc. They are burying their heads in the sand and pointing fingers at China.
There's a few issues with that article though and the idea of the gulf stream collapsing in general. The referred study is talking about the AMOC - that makes up just a piece of the gulf stream. Of course the AMOC collapsing would be catastrophic, but the gulf stream collapsing is a very different 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.
Which is why you target the tax revenue generated carefullyThe difficulty is that measures like that disproportionately hurt the poorest, whilst the wealthy can continue as normal.
Which is an awful decision by the Norwegian Government, the planet is burning to death, we don't need more oil and gas. But then, as a petrostate, I'm not surprised.With an increasing global population, and living standards in Asia & Africa improving, the reality is that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables (whilst desirable) will take decades.
In the meantime the world will need a balance between fossil fuels, nuclear & renewables. There has already been chronic underinvestment in the oil & gas industry over the past 7 years which could well result in a supply crunch in the not too distant future - that’s why Brent is trading at $70/bbl despite a global pandemic & the travel industry on its knees.
Norway have realised this and are currently offering a government tax rebate of 78% on O&G exploration costs.
I don’t think taxing our way out of it is the best solution. Living standards are always going to be an important consideration for countries and people so if you want collective buy-in and responsibility it needs to be a joined up, balanced & reasonable approach to transition as smoothly as possible within a realistic timeframe whilst retaining (and improving) living standards as much as possible. We do have to accept that fossil fuels are not going to be turned off immediately though.
Meanwhile China are not only building hundreds of new coal power stations but exporting the technology and subsiding other countries to do soIt is worth noting that it is becoming increasingly difficult for fossil fuel based companies to obtain conventional financing for new projects such as oil exploration/drilling, mining and fossil fuel based power stations. Lenders are becoming extremely wary of anything that requires long term finance and this is having a very real effect on future growth of such assets.
China is indeed in a league of it’s own and as in many other matters, it is not constrained by any of the factors that might influence other countries. The USA pays lip service to reducing carbon emissions but does very little at Governmental level.Meanwhile China are not only building hundreds of new coal power stations but exporting the technology and subsiding other countries to do so
Guess there hasn't been enough flooding or sufficient wildfires in China for them to take it seriously. How long do we have to wait?China is indeed in a league of it’s own and as in many other matters, it is not constrained by any of the factors that might influence other countries. The USA pays lip service to reducing carbon emissions but does very little at Governmental level.
Until Governments implement real decisions to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the reduction in finance for capital investment in new projects may somewhat slow down the growth in this sector.