“Fight fossil fuels or the future dies”

Written By: - Date published: 1:52 pm, July 16th, 2022 - 68 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster - Tags:

England braces for 40C temperatures as experts warn thousands could die

Thousands of people could die in the coming heatwave, experts have warned, as the government triggered the first ever national emergency heat red alert with a record 40C (104F) temperature forecast for south-east England on Tuesday.

Health officials fear people living alone on upper floors of buildings are among those who could perish, as people did in Paris in 2003. Last year two lesser heat episodes caused about 1,600 excess deaths, according to official figures.

The level 4 heat alert announced for Monday and Tuesday by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) means “illness and death may occur among the fit and healthy, and not just in high-risk groups”.

The Met Office described the forecast heat that is coming from France and Spain as “absolutely unprecedented” and urged people to treat it like a storm warning and consider changing plans.

Rail passengers urged to avoid train travel in extreme UK heatwave

Network Rail says safety restrictions will include slower trains amid possible buckled rails and trackside fires

England heatwave: what is a level 4 national emergency?

The government first published a heatwave plan for England in 2004 after a devastating pan-European heatwave in 2003, and updated it in 2012. Level 4 is the highest of five levels (0-4) in the “heat-health alert system”. It “is reached when a heatwave is so severe and/or prolonged that its effects extend outside the health and social care system, such as power or water shortages, and/or where the integrity of health and social care systems is threatened”.

…

What else are they worried about?

Melting roads could cause congestion and leave people stranded in cars. Railways could buckle. Extreme heat on the London Underground could require bottled water to be supplied. Rising demand for electricity as people use air conditioning and fans at the same time as the heat reduces the power-carrying capacity of the system because it is harder to cool conductors.

Water shortages are a fear but if the mains supply is lost water companies are required to provide no less than 10 litres per person per day, with special attention given to the needs of vulnerable people, hospitals and schools.

We cannot say we haven’t been warned.

That’s global warming at 1.12C in a cooler year. Now consider what it will be like at 2C or 5C warming. We are not adapted for this biologically or technologically or psychologically.

We do still have time to change and at this point should be doing everything we can, all of us.

Want inspiration on the proactive pathways through the crisis to something better? We’ve never had so much good choice about things that can make a difference. The key here is that taking proactive pathways makes us feel better and empowers us to make the changes needed. The trick is understanding that it’s not green BAU that will save us, but system change to regenerative models is what will drop fossil fuel usage fast.

The Powerdown

Hope Punk

Regenerative change

How Change Happens

Doughnut Economics

The challenge now is to create local to global economies that ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials – from food and housing to healthcare and political voice – while safeguarding Earth’s life-giving systems, from a stable climate and fertile soils to healthy oceans and a protective ozone layer. This single switch of purpose transforms the meaning and shape of economic progress: from endless growth to thriving in balance.

Kate Raworth, on Doughnut Economics.

 

I don’t allow climate denialism of any kind under my posts. That includes arguing the Bart defense (‘humans didn’t do it’), or the Gosman defense (BAU capitalism must reign supreme/change is too hard) or the McPherson defense (‘it’s too late’).

I’m with her ^^^

68 comments on ““Fight fossil fuels or the future dies” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony Veitch (not etc.) 1
    16 July 2022 at 2:50 pm

    As posted on Open Mike today (and by Gosman yesterday), a (im)practical way to tackle climate change. Impractical because the BAU people will never buy into it! But it could work if the world wakes up in time!

    “Fossil fuels account for three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions, and they have to go. A new campaign, endorsed by 100 Nobel laureates and several thousand scientists, calls for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to do just that: an international agreement to end fossil fuels on a fair and binding schedule.”

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/11/what-would-it-look-like-if-we-treated-climate-change-as-an-actual-emergency

    This article demands further study and comment.

    • weka 1.1
      16 July 2022 at 6:41 pm

      I've been trying to coin a term for the idea that we can not act on climate change because it will cause too much disruption, which ignores the worse disruption that runaway climate change will bring anyway. Must be a fair amount of denial going on there, although some people have great faith in capitalism and/or science to get us out of the mess.

      • pat 1.1.1
        16 July 2022 at 7:31 pm

        If you were stuck on a very high bridge with a train coming down the line sometime in the future would you jump off the bridge now because sooner or later the train is going to run you down?

        • Robert Guyton 1.1.1.1
          16 July 2022 at 8:21 pm

          I'd walk calmly to the end of the bridge then step to safety but I wouldn't much around for too long, anguishing about whether to act or not.

        • weka 1.1.1.2
          16 July 2022 at 8:28 pm

          If you were stuck on a very high bridge with a train coming down the line sometime in the future would you jump off the bridge now because sooner or later the train is going to run you down?

          And there's the crux of it. People lack the imagination to see how we could get off the bridge in time without killing ourselves, so instead stay where they are and get killed by the train instead. There are more than jump to our deaths vs run over by a train.

          At this point I'm calling it willful ignorance, there really is no excuse for not acting now that we know how serious it is and that there are pathways we can take that will make the difference.

          • pat 1.1.1.2.1
            16 July 2022 at 8:41 pm

            I said stuck for a reason….calmly walking off the bridge isnt an option (any more)….and nor did i say jumping to our death, rather that the bridge was very high (and jumping involves considerable risk)

            • weka 1.1.1.2.1.1
              16 July 2022 at 8:45 pm

              sure, but I still maintain that that's because you personally see our options are akin to getting off a high bridge at substantial risk, whereas Robert and I both see that we still have time to walk off the bridge. We're never going to be able to cross the bridge again, so there will be loss and change, but we both have the experience of living differently and understanding that it doesn't have to be a catastrophe.

              • pat …
                16 July 2022 at 8:51 pm

                I doubt youd appreciate me expressing my opinion on the options…the analogy I used was to demonstrate why I think most people are reluctant to make the radical change the situation demands.

                • weka …
                  16 July 2022 at 9:10 pm

                  if you don't want to lay out what you think the options are, that's on you not me. The point of the discussion is to grapple with the gnarly issues, can't do that if people won't say what they think.

                  • pat …
                    16 July 2022 at 9:20 pm

                    "I don’t allow climate denialism of any kind under my posts. That includes arguing the Bart defense (‘humans didn’t do it’), or the Gosman defense (BAU capitalism must reign supreme/change is too hard) or the McPherson defense (‘it’s too late’)."

                    • weka …
                      16 July 2022 at 9:36 pm

                      My point stands. You believe that it's too hard, or too late. That belief inhibits seeing a way forward (or a safer way off the bridge). And thus action isn't taken. This is pretty much why I won't allow those arguments under my posts, they advocate not acting even though there is no way to know if the position is true or not.

                      If you want to argue that other people believe that and thus won't support change, you can do that, you just have to produce some evidence that that is what is stopping most or a significant number of people from acting. This would be a useful debate, because then we can test which is true: jump off the bridge at big risk, or walk off and never go back.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 11:37 pm

                      time stamp please for support for this claim,

                      Ive yet to see anything that passes the most cursory examination , including transition towns, the inhabitants/developers of which admit without the nearby support of fossil fueled communities they are non viable. Even Donella Meadows, who walked the talk said as much.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 11:58 pm

                      btw Pat, if you stick to the threaded replies it will make the conversation easier to follow. Once you run out of reply buttons, just scroll up to the first available button in line with the comment you are replying to. Doesn't matter whose name is on that comment, this is how you keep the conversation in a single thread (people in the conversation will know to look at everyone's replies).

                    • weka …
                      18 July 2022 at 12:21 am

                      I started watching. Around 2m 20 she says that none of the systems are sustainable according to the three biophysical necessities (and the socioeconomic one).

                      … Dana outlines the three biophysical necessities of sustainability as proposed by Herman Daly:

                      • 1) Every renewable resource must be used at or below the rate at which it can regenerate itself.
                      • 2) Every nonrenewable resource must be used at or below the rate at which a renewable substitute can be developed.
                      • 3) Every pollution stream must be emitted at or below the rate at which it can be absorbed or made harmless.

                      And Dana added one more:

                      4) To be socially sustainable, capital stocks and resource flows must be equitably distributed and sufficient to provide a good life for everyone.

                      If we wish to create a sustainable world, we must take into consideration and fulfill these biophysical necessities of sustainability.

                      https://donellameadows.org/sustainable-systems-videos/

                      This isn't solely an issue of fossil fuels, she's talking about true sustainability. It applies also to do with waste and pollution, and all the resources we use not just FFs.

                      The point here isn't that we can't transition, it's that our current systems aren't sustainable. That is something we can change.

                      Inherent in the necessities is the idea that it's not about getting rid of (eg FFs), it's about the principles governing our relationship with the natural world.

                      That we are completely dependent on fossil fuels currently, doesn't mean we cannot transition to sustainable systems. It means we're not yet.

                      If you say that it won't work because no-one has done it fully yet, this makes me think you don't understand systems change. The whole point is that we have a myriad of interconnected systems, and we're just not very good atm at doing those sustainably.

                  • pat …
                    16 July 2022 at 9:47 pm

                    Quite simply we will not reduce our carbon outputs by any significant degree until the wherewithal to continue it collapses either due to environmental or societal collapse…we are incapable of supporting our overshot population without the use of fossil fuels as surely as we are incapable of continuing to use them.

                    The only question is whether the planet remains capable of supporting mammalian life.

                    • weka …
                      16 July 2022 at 9:59 pm

                      that's not an argument, it's simply your asserted belief. As I said, this belief stops people from seeing other futures.

                    • pat …
                      16 July 2022 at 10:08 pm

                      You refute we are unable to support 8 billion without fossil fuel use?….thats the argument, for 8 billion we currently are.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 7:21 pm

                      I don't think it's true. I haven't refuted it yet, because it's such a broad and vague statement. But let's try this as a start:

                      • humans waste a phenomenal amount of food globally, 1/3 of food produced according to this https://www.wfp.org/stories/5-facts-about-food-waste-and-hunger
                      • the people that already grow food with minimal fossil fuel use talk about this a fair amount and they believe that it's possible using the broad set of regenag techniques we have. These are experts in their fields, so to speak
                      • we will have to grow most food local to where it is consumed. This is less of an issue than the ensuing economic issues. How do we transition off highly industrialised cash crop economies. This is a political issue not a logistical or ag one.
                      • we should immediately stop building on fertile land especially in and around large cities. Again, a political issue.

                      The biggest impediment is people's inexperience and therefore their belief that only industrial global food chains can feed people. Whereas those of us in communities where it's completely normal to grow a lot of food, can see much more easily how it could work.

                    • RedLogix …
                      17 July 2022 at 7:39 pm

                      The biggest impediment is people's inexperience and therefore their belief that only industrial global food chains can feed people.

                      Yet prior to industrialisation – and with millenia of experience – human population barely got to 800m and was not rising at all.

                      Now this does not gainsay the experience you speak of in growing plenty of food locally. But I would argue that you have discounted much of the invisible subsidy that is supporting your efforts because you are inevitably embedded in an industrialised society. And this society provides a myriad of services in a multitude of dimensions that cannot be ignored if you want to scale up to a global scale. (And that is the only scale that makes sense.)

                      Or if you don't like me reaching back into time to make my case, then consider the remnant populations of subsistence agricultural people still living today outside of the industrialised food chains. All of them living in absolute poverty or close to it.

                      Now this does not mean your approach is impossible, or that I even oppose it in principle. But there is a substantial energy and technology hurdle to leap over before it stacks up in my view.

                    • pat …
                      17 July 2022 at 8:31 pm

                      @Redlogic.

                      Indeed, less than a billion and a life expectancy of 32 (high mortality rate)…fossil energy is ubiquitous in all that we do and it is that which provides our current abilities….each barrel of oil does the equivalent of 25,000 hours of hard human labour….we may be able to farm locally using regenerative techniques but we wont be supporting 8 billion…and we will be spending a lot of time fighting over the ever diminishing resources…something that Id suggest most realise even if only subconsciously.

                    • RedLogix …
                      17 July 2022 at 8:45 pm

                      Good comment pat. I like it when we agree on something.

                      each barrel of oil does the equivalent of 25,000 hours of hard human labour

                      That was such a startling claim I went and searched on it. A barrel of oil contains roughly 1700 kWhr of energy, and converting that into human hours of labour equivalent relies on a bunch of assumptions. But yes this thread pretty much confirms that 25,000 hours is in the ball park.

                    • pat …
                      17 July 2022 at 9:21 pm

                      There are various methods of calculation, I grabbed the first to confirm, but one thing they all share is a similar order of magnitude.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 9:56 pm

                      But I would argue that you have discounted much of the invisible subsidy that is supporting your efforts because you are inevitably embedded in an industrialised society.

                      You would be wrong though. I came to this debate from Peak Oil analysis and debate over a decade ago. The ways in which industrialised societies are utterly dependent on fossil fuels was the ground upon which Peak Oil theory existed, and its where I cut my teeth.

                      The question then becomes why you would assume my argument discounts that when it actually takes it into account. Transitions Towns and permaculture (among other) both have clear analysis of both the problem and the transition away from fossil fuels and how that might happen. TT arose out of the twin crisis of Peak Oil and Climate Change, the reality of being embedded in industrial society is embedded in transition theory and practice. That's why it's called transition.

                      And this society provides a myriad of services in a multitude of dimensions that cannot be ignored if you want to scale up to a global scale. (And that is the only scale that makes sense.)

                      Actually it's not. We can think global and act local. Rather than trying to come up with global solutions, we can work with common principles that are enacted locally accord to the needs of the situation. This is a core principle of sustainable design. What works in Southland NZ, isn't going to work in Perth.

                      The beauty of that is that local resiliency and sustainability design is well adapted to solving such problems. We can support each rohe to figure out food, shelter, health, education, industry and so on. How much can be produced locally, how much needs to be imported (from other parts of the country, from other parts of the world), how much can be exported, where it's better to work locally (this area needs this sized school) vs nationally (education curriculum, but still adapted locally) vs globally (using politics and aid to make sure that poorer countries have access to education tech and knowledge bases).

                      Or if you don't like me reaching back into time to make my case, then consider the remnant populations of subsistence agricultural people still living today outside of the industrialised food chains. All of them living in absolute poverty or close to it.

                      Don't actually understand this argument. Obviously we are in a much better position than either people pre-industrial, or in current subsistence situations. Why would we give up all the advantages of the industrial and technological revolutions? This doesn't make sense. Our knowledge bases and technologies aren't inherently dependent on fossil fuels.

                      Now this does not mean your approach is impossible, or that I even oppose it in principle. But there is a substantial energy and technology hurdle to leap over before it stacks up in my view.

                      Unless we powerdown. If you think that means subsistence and poverty, you've missed what is being argued and I would say that like Pat, this is a failure of imagination, or perhaps attachment to an ideology.

                      And then there is the dilemma that I was trying to name. If you think the powerdown is bad wait until you see what climate collapse is like. Given that climate collapse is very likely on our current trajectory, why would we not explore fully options like the Powerdown. Pat argues people won't want to do that transition, but what I see is an unwillingness to have the conversation, and this seems defeatest given what is at stake. I find the argument self-serving – oh people won't want to do that, so we shouldn't try, let's just wait for catastrophe.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:02 pm

                      we may be able to farm locally using regenerative techniques but we wont be supporting 8 billion

                      why not? What number of people could regenag feed?

                      Abstract reductionist ideas about how many human energy units there are in a barrel of oil completely ignore that regnerative agriculture, by definition, relies on nature to do the heavy lifting. It's not only human power, it's the power of the microbes in the soil, the techniques that increase that, then the mutually beneficial interaction of different forms of life and how they lift the whole. Whole system design increase efficiencies.

                      Permaculture btw is based on doing less work for more output. Have you watched much Bill Mollison? His global gardener series is worth tracking down. Might drive you nuts if you want global figures, but the principles are the thing to get to grips with.

                    • pat …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:04 pm

                      "Pat argues people won't want to do that transition, but what I see is an unwillingness to have the conversation, and this seems defeatest given what is at stake. I find the argument self-serving – oh people won't want to do that, so we shouldn't try, let's just wait for catastrophe."

                      If you think you have the solution then your path is simple…convince enough people your solutions will work and they will adopt them.

                      Ive yet to see anything that passes the most cursory examination , including transition towns, the inhabitants/developers of which admit without the nearby support of fossil fueled communities they are non viable. Even Donella Meadows, who walked the talk said as much.

                      8 billion

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:23 pm

                      If you think you have the solution then your path is simple…convince enough people your solutions will work and they will adopt them.

                      This is a very neoliberal response. Transition will never come from such individualistic framing.

                      Ive yet to see anything that passes the most cursory examination , including transition towns, the inhabitants/developers of which admit without the nearby support of fossil fueled communities they are non viable.

                      citation needed. Bearing in mind no-one was saying give up FF overnight. Of course we need to use the tools and resources we have now to transition. This is what transition is (am beginning to wonder if the concept of transition needs to be explained)

                      Even Donella Meadows, who walked the talk said as much.

                      citation needed.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:26 pm

                      as an example of what transition is.

                      Geoff Lawton, a highly regarded permaculture designer, has said that we should use the technology available now to set up the systems that will be less dependent on that technology and more resilient and sustainable (I'm paraphrasing). Use a fossil fuel powered digger to create swales so that you don't need industrial irrigation.

                      Holmgren (one of the co-originators of permaculture), says that we don't have to solve all the problems now of a post-carbon, powered down world. People that come after us will be able to see solutions that we cannot. What we have to do is the things within our power that set us on the right course. We have to turn around and start walking off the bridge.

                      Pat and RL’s arguments sound like they’re based in the idea that transition is going from fossil fuels to no fossil fuels, as if we can’t use fossil fuels now for the transition, and as if the transition isn’t a regenerative process but simply one of loss.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:31 pm

                      8 billion

                      this again is a failure of imagination. It's not 8 billion stock units that have to be fed. It's a huge range of people, communities, cities, skills, technologies, and land bases with a vast array of ecologies. Therein lies the way to feed so many people, you put them in context of their local bioregion and you look at what that bioregion can sustain. Once you start thinking about moving food around the globe you have lost.

                    • pat …
                      17 July 2022 at 10:50 pm

                      Casting pejoratives dosnt advance your case.

                      The most convincing argument for your position would be in the demonstration….when there are successful sustainable communities living the ideal then you will find the task easier.

                      Hasnt happened yet.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 11:13 pm

                      Casting pejoratives dosnt advance your case.

                      what pejoratives? 🤔

                      The most convincing argument for your position would be in the demonstration….when there are successful sustainable communities living the ideal then you will find the task easier.

                      Hasnt happened yet.

                      Yes, it really has. Transition Towns are a good example (again, the point isn't to give up fossil fuels overnight, it's to transition). There are plenty of people growing most of their own food. There are regenerative agriculture farms.

                      Still waiting for your citations.

                    • RedLogix …
                      17 July 2022 at 11:46 pm

                      Why would we give up all the advantages of the industrial and technological revolutions? This doesn't make sense. Our knowledge bases and technologies aren't inherently dependent on fossil fuels.

                      This. We underestimate our ancestors terribly; they lived in a much tougher lives than us. They were smart and adaptable and knew very well how to make the best of their land and climate to grow food – yet without access to cheap plentiful energy they were always constrained to the strict limits of sunshine. And all the attendant evils of empire and slavery.

                      As someone who has worked his entire life in heavy industry I am viscerally aware of just how everything about our built environment has it's origins from either farm or a mine – and utterly depends on cheap, reliable energy to be transformed and transported to us. And complex objects like these computers we type on, or fancy vaccines require an astonishing complexity of steps and linkages to come into existence and to be maintained.

                      Including all of the knowledge base and technologies that accompany it. There are many prior examples of how societies lost knowledge when the economy that utilised it collapsed.

                      Without cheap, reliable energy all of this goes away, either quickly and catastrophically or slowly and erratically, And there will be no choice in the matter. If you think this improbable, just consider the supply chain disruptions we have seen this past two years, from a relatively minor disturbance,

                      My argument all along is that fossil fuels were always the transitional technology – and were our one shot only chance to move from a pre-industrial low energy world to one based on high tech, high energy nuclear world. That does not exclude many of the ideas you promote, including renag and circular economies, but it does place them in a wholly more expansive context that might bring prosperity, longevity and unimagined possibilities to the whole of humanity.

                    • weka …
                      17 July 2022 at 11:55 pm

                      Without cheap, reliable energy all of this goes away, either quickly and catastrophically or slowly and erratically,

                      why would ALL of it go away? If we powerdown, why would we lose the ability to grow food? Or, say, build houses?

                    • pat …
                      18 July 2022 at 2:05 am

                      Citation for D.Meadows is in the first 5 minutes of the posted lecture.

                      The transition town citation i will have to refind, but believe it was in an in depth interview with Rob Hopkins discussing Kinsdale.

                      There are no transition towns in NZ, simply community initiatives such as community gardens and food forests etc all operating within a fossil fueled society and all that provides.

                      The concept of 'transition' loses all meaning when it relies on that which you seek to transition from.

                      There is a very good reason why the worlds population didnt exceed 1 billion until we exploited fossil energy…its called work, and we couldnt do enough of it to consistently feed and shelter anymore than that….even on an unexploited and relatively unpolluted planet.

                      The pejorative…"This is a very neoliberal response. Transition will never come from such individualistic framing."

                      It is worth noting that the Donella Meadows lecture was given in 1999 when the world population was 6 billion.

                      I reiterate, you will find the task of convincing people to make the change you desire if you can demonstrate it….Donella Meadows (and many others) have spent decades working on it and yet we have no community to hold up as a model….as she said, her farm is NOT sustainable…but she learned a lot.

                      The final thing I will say is , as is demonstrated in the lecture, we are already in overshoot….so we will get our transition whether we choose it or not.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      18 July 2022 at 4:26 am

                      The concept of 'transition' loses all meaning when it relies on that which you seek to transition from.

                      Not following that – a semi-orderly transition (over a few generations) from the current massive use of fossil fuels to a less FF-dependent (different) civilisation would (obviously) require gradual substitution of FFs with non-FF energy sources to support (equitably shared) critical (life-sustaining) enterprises, and a concomitant progressive cull of non-essential consumption (super-yachts, long-distance mass tourism, cryptocurrencies, eating meat, etc. etc.)

                      Some will characterise calls for consumer 'sacrifices' as envy-driven and/or infringements of (God-given) freedoms and conveniences (the human exceptionalism/entitlement problem), and resist with every fibre of their being. That's OK – free-loading behaviour is inevitable.

                      Willingness to reduce travel consumption to support a low-carbon transition beyond COVID-19 [March 2022]
                      We conclude that behaviour associated with affluence represents a major barrier to a low-carbon transition, and that policies must address over-consumption associated with affluence as a priority.

                      THEMATIC SECTION – Lifestyle transformation and reduced consumption: a transformative learning process [2022]

                      Transitions happen – always have, always will. I'm picking that transitioning the current iteration of human civilisation on spaceship Earth to something more sustainable will involve widespread environmental and societal collapse – whether that vague prediction is realistic or unduly pessimistic only time will tell.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption#Outlook

                    • pat …
                      18 July 2022 at 9:41 am

                      @Drowsy

                      "Not following that – a semi-orderly transition (over a few generations) from the current massive use of fossil fuels to a less FF-dependent (different) civilisation would (obviously) require gradual substitution of FFs with non-FF energy sources to support"

                      Except we do not have generations and everything in play for the so called transition town ideal is currently facilitated by those fossil fuels…everything. Even, as we are witnessing, a reduction in that availability is causing untold disruption to the system that currently (almost) supports the 8 billion.

                      That should demonstrate how vulnerable the system is…as was noted in the lecture things look fine…and fall off a cliff.

                      The luxury of time was frittered away years ago.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      18 July 2022 at 12:27 pm

                      The luxury of time was frittered away years ago.

                      Agree that spaceship Earth has shifted (past a tipping point) from the practical possibility (50 years ago) of a semi-orderly transition to a low-carbon civilisation – looks to me increasingly like a theoretical possibility only, due to a mix of behavioural and technical issues.

                    • pat …
                      18 July 2022 at 12:45 pm

                      Sadly yes….as Donella Meadows notes in that lecture the 'rational' individual and group behaviours create feed back loops that made the right thing to do almost impossible…and her focus was not solely climate change which is important to remember, climate change really is only one outcome of a much bigger problem.

          • Janet 1.1.1.2.2
            16 July 2022 at 9:20 pm

            Actually the majority of people do not have strong visionary ability and will not change their ways much because of this. The other problem is, as covid has proved, they all want to get back to normal FREE life, not rearrange their lives to help reduce our impact on the environment. Travel, for example should stop, but that suggestion would appall most people. All unnecessary imports should stop now to cut the manufacturing of un-needed good , and so on and so on. The government is going to have to lead the way through this by relentless regulating, otherwise the majority will not change their ways to meet the need.

            • weka 1.1.1.2.2.1
              16 July 2022 at 9:41 pm

              I don't think it's needs the majority to start with. It needs a significant minority who can see the pathways and act accordingly. People will be attracted to attractive stories if the future. People want BAU, but do they want petrol at $5/L and a massive grocery bill? At some point the pressures become big enough to make alternatives look like the better option.

          • In Vino 1.1.1.2.3
            16 July 2022 at 9:57 pm

            The rich capitalists I know would snigger and say that most trains run terribly late, or turn out to have been cancelled..

      • Tony Veitch (not etc.) 1.1.2
        16 July 2022 at 8:10 pm

        some people have great faith in capitalism and/or science to get us out of the mess.

        Carbon capture on a scale significant enough to save the world is just a capitalist billionaire's wet dream.

        We need comprehensive, binding and co-operative action from all world governments, along the lines of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty as mentioned above, if we are to have any hope.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.3
        17 July 2022 at 7:00 pm

        Climate double-do, inspired by 'double-think'.

        Not my best but I'll keep thinking on it.

      • Craig H 1.1.4
        18 July 2022 at 9:57 am

        An interesting article about types of climate change denial. It is based on the types of genocide denial, so might seem a bit over the top for some, but I thought it was a good description.

        To summarise the article, there are three types of denial:

        Literal denial – there is no climate change

        Interpretive denial – interprets facts in a way that allows conclusions of climate change being a normal planetary phenomenon, or there is climate change but it's not caused by humans

        Implicatory denial – climate change is happening and it's serious, but the implications of that change are not accepted (either outright or by under-acceptance)

        I think the term "implicatory denier" would cover someone who said that we can't act on climate change or need to act more slowly because it would cause too much disruption. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though.

  2. Cricklewood 2
    16 July 2022 at 7:48 pm

    I was working in England during the early 2000s heat wave we hit about 43 on the work site. London when the wind stops is like a green house except smog is the roof 🙃

    Worst part was the tube home insanely uncomfortable on the deeper lines.

    • weka 2.1
      16 July 2022 at 8:31 pm

      I'm useless by the mid 30s, and that's inside hiding. Was in Melbourne once when it hit 40. I was in an airconditioned house, and couldn't understand how people could to work outside. I expect some of the problems in the UK will be due to lack of acclimatisation (whereas the Aussies are more used to it)

      • Belladonna 2.1.1
        16 July 2022 at 8:39 pm

        Found that I can cope with dry heat (e.g. Canberra) more than damp humidity (Sydney).
        But can't say that I enjoy either….. Definitely happier in temperate climates.

        My brother in London tells me that the numbers of people retrofitting air-conditioning into apartments (units on balconies) is insane – tradies booked up for months, bribes to jump the wait list apparently common.

        • RedLogix 2.1.1.1
          16 July 2022 at 10:10 pm

          Working on the bauxite sites at Weipa, Cape York during the run up and through the rainy season, the Caribbean coast of Panama, or the tropical rain forests of Colombia takes the idea of 'damp heat' to a whole other level. At this level of saturated humidity the temperature rarely exceeds 34degC, but is incredibly uncomfortable. By 10am your boots are squelching with sweat and by the end of 12 hour shift I was utterly drained. I’d barely make it back to my room, stand under a lukewarm shower, then collapse on the bed.

          I found the the correct temperature to set my room's aircon was 24degC. Any higher and it's hard to sleep, lower and the contrast to outside gets too large. You know it's going to be a tough day when you step out of your room at 4am, the temperature is still 29degC and your glasses immediately fog up because they are still a few degrees cool enough to condense the super humidity out of the air.

          On the other hand the dry heat in the interior, when it gets into the mid-40's or higher is like stepping into an oven. The upside is the nights are usually very cool, or even sub-zero and sleeping is much less of a problem. If you stay outside from morning onwards and acclimatise through the morning, and then stay out of the worst of the sun during the afternoon you get through the day in much better shape.

          But there are definitely people who prefer to cold and low humidity and those who prefer the heat and lots of humidity. Acclimatisation is part of it, but only plays a modest role over time. Even now after five years in Brisbane for example I still hate the summer months.

          • Belladonna 2.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2022 at 9:38 am

            Born and bred in Auckland – and still hate the summer humidity. As you said – you can survive during the day, but it's the hot humid nights that are the killer.
            Unsurprising that virtually everyone I know has invested in heat pumps. What that does for the climate, God only knows….

  3. Maurice 3
    16 July 2022 at 8:27 pm

    -3 degrees C down South (WINTER!) 43 degrees up North (SUMMER!)

    The "average" temperature is a nice, livable 20 degrees C

    How silly "average" temperatures are!

  4. Stuart Munro 4
    16 July 2022 at 9:21 pm

    The impact of AGW on aquaculture is particularly noticeable, with salmon, one of our biggest earners, suffering significant losses when water temperatures creep over 15 degrees.

    With AGW slated to deliver 2-3 degrees by 2050, but with droughts and/or floods to become more frequent, the odds of a major dieoff or a total farm loss increase significantly with each decade to 2050.

    Mind, the airfreight export route can be expected to contract as we come to terms with a need to wean off petroleum – though lighter than air freight to Oz may remain feasible.

  5. Tricledrown 5
    17 July 2022 at 3:26 pm

    We are to reliant on fossil fuels.Big carbon have to much power ie the US the repugnants and one or two democrats have control over congress forcing the Biden administration to stop counter measures.Covid and the War in the Ukraine have highlighted how fragile the Worlds economies are.

  6. BAW 6
    18 July 2022 at 7:22 am

    Nat voter here.

    Oddly enough I once read that we still have the legislation on the books which permitted things like the carless days and other fuel economy measures. All the government needs to do is write the regulations. That said Carless days never saved much petrol.

  8. Maurice 8
    18 July 2022 at 11:29 am

    Throughout human history we have always been surrounded by those who are prepared (nay! eager) to kill us and take that which we have. To rely upon others to defend us simply means we create a force which is also capable of that; particularly when times get tough and surpluses are reduced or eliminated.

    It is extremely wistful … and dangerous to think otherwise!

    A proportion of our society are often "going a-Viking" presently.

    Ram Raiding!

  9. Jackel 9
    19 July 2022 at 1:09 am

    Rwnj, I find your lack of imagination disturbing.

  10. PsyclingLeft.Always 10
    21 July 2022 at 7:27 am

    Air pollution from cars killing thousands of NZers yearly

    t found 3300 people were dying yearly because of air pollution, and it was mostly because of cars.

    That meant as a whole, 10 percent of the people who died each year in the country were dying because of air pollution.

    Exposure was also sending more than 13,000 people to hospital for respiratory and cardiac illnesses and giving the same number of children asthma.

    The social cost of these health impacts was estimated to be $15.6 billion.

    The study, Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand, was conducted by New Zealand experts in air quality, health, and economics.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470457/air-pollution-from-cars-killing-thousands-of-nzers-yearly

    Otago woman builds solar powered vehicle

    “My biggest motivation to do this was to show that it can be done.”

    She has travelled more than 23,000 kilometres in her car, which she estimates to be the equivalent of nine round trips from Dunedin to Auckland.

    looking at possible conversion kits for fossil fuel vehicles.

    “It’s part of the circular economy they [the government] keep talking about and it means instead of bringing in a whole lot of new stuff we can use what we’ve got, so I’m working on that right now.”

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018843976/otago-woman-builds-solar-powered-vehicle

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201783072/gearhead-granny

    Hi Weka. Rosemary Penwarden sounds extremely Interesting : ) ! Have you heard of/know her?