Climate change denialism – Page 9

September 7, 2021June 30, 2022

25 biggest European banks are failing on their own green pledges

Over the last decade or so, the laws of countries across the developed world have not kept up with changes in our knowledge of threats to the natural world. As a result, promises to not fund projects that destroy ecosystems are what consumers have to go on in choosing which bank to let use your money.

Yet, out of the 25 biggest European banks none are actually living up to their promises. ShareAction, the body which carried out the research, did state that some banks such as NatWest are doing well on net zero targets, and restricting funding for fossil fuel projects.

September 4, 2021June 30, 2022

What should we do do with wilful misunderstanding of accurate climate predictions

I was watching a YouTube video on Tuesday which raises an important point.

Why do people on the whole continue to believe climate science is not settled, or that all of climate science predictions have been way out? This is not generally a belief that we come to on our own, it is usually fed to us by vested interests (either directly by fossil fuel companies, or indirectly by a publication which is sponsored, though this sponsoring is not always clear).

One of the most disgusting ways they do this, which is raised in the video, is by looking at a graph with a number of possible future lines. They then ignore the lines that are accurate and clearly mimic the warming that actually occurred, and simply leave the graft lines which were an extreme prediction in one or other direction.

What can we do about this? Our animal brains tend to pick and choose evidence that support the views we have already come to – this process often occurs without us even noticing.

It is therefore quite problematic if people are giving us a view of these climate science predictions from the past (in this case the graph created by a climate scientist called Hanson back in 1988, he plotted four possible temperature patterns, and one of them predict real-world temperature rises to a terrifyingly accurate degree.

So what people have done is to take an extremely clever piece of climate science that has accurately predicted the temperature rises over the last 40 years, and made a significant number of people believe that he had it completely wrong.

Now it is true that if you have an inquiring mind, one article is not likely to sway you. However, if, like many other people you believe something similar to what is being said in the article you are likely to trust it and may not search out others to check the veracity.

As the video shows, many vested interests have simple shown (as you see in the video) the observed temperatures (black line) and Scenario A (the red line). It is true that Scenario A overestimated the warming that we would experience. However, that is precisely the point – Scenario A represents what would have happened if humanity had continued as though there was no warning.

But that is not true! Many people would argue that we are not doing enough (and it is hard to argue this isn’t a legitimate concern) but we have done something.

Carbon emissions in some countries have fallen dramatically. This is nothing to the amount of cutting that is required, but we have made progress.

Hansens actual prediction of where we would stand at this point, is scenario B. This at the point of the last actual data is right on the money. Actual observational data always takes time to come in, so we are yet to see if observational data will follow the latest rise that Scenario B shows. But it is surely clear to even people who rarely use maps, that predictions of the last 30 years have been alarmingly close to what was predicted back in 1988

What can we do?

The simple fact is that the climate science on global warming is settled. When politicians try to run on a concept that goes against this they should be called out for it. It is true that democracy does not always give you the best candidate. In recent times we have lived through for years where America elected a person who believed things that were totally out of line with established science.

We need to reach a point where if someone is stating something as fact which is clearly not, not only should they fail to be elected but the falsehoods they have spread should be corrected.

Furthermore, businesses that are responsible for large quantities of pollution should not be able to get away with whitewashing their responsibility. Look at who you are giving your custom to. If they are damaging the planet, and you are paying them for services then the damage is in your name and you are responsible (morally if not at the current time financially).

As consumers we have a great deal of power. Sure we want good quality items that don’t cost too much, but we also do not want them to harm the planet. Engage with the businesses, if they are doing things that are bad for the planet. If they will not engage with you, then stop buying anything from them! If large numbers of their customers decide to go elsewhere businesses will quickly change their ways.

It was always foolish when Donald Trump stated that some action was too expensive.

Humanity will have to pay. If we do not pay to fix our mess now, then future generations will suffer the consequences.

If we do not act now, we are passing on the responsibility to our children and grandchildren – and they are likely to have to pay tens or hundreds of times what we considered too much. The cost will be paid, the bill that we are currently saying is too high, is tiny compared to the costs that we are passing on to our children. This is one of the issues with democracy – it is all very well to say that democratically elected leaders will work in the greater good, but the way elections work they only have to take into account the current voters. It is our job to make sure that short term policies do not win elections.

August 27, 2021June 30, 2022

British Banks have funded more than 800 million tonnes of carbon production a year

Alarmingly this quantity is twice the amount that the UK emitted in the same year, indeed British banking would be the 9th highest emitter in the world.

In this day and age it is not good enough to merely be environmentally conscious yourself. Many of these products would not been able to take place without funding from the UK.

These banks must change their policies. For one it is severely damaging the worlds, however even if the banks are not interested in whether they are damaging the world, these Investments are clearly poor, as they will have to stop being used long before they make their money back.

The British public must take action. If banks and companies that are investing in in industries that are emitting large quantities of carbon, they are destroying our future. We must take action by defending them completely so that they either change their behaviour or go out of business.

I encourage you, to look into your banks behaviour, and move your money if they are not acting in the planets best interest – make sure they know why you are moving.

August 26, 2021June 30, 2022

1% of the world’s population cause 50% of aviation’s annual emissions

We need to find a way to add in the cost of carbon emissions onto airline flight prices.

If just 1% of the world’s population is flying so frequently that they make 50% of the annual emissions from flying, you would suppose that the majority of these people could afford to pay more for the ticket.

August 18, 2021June 30, 2022

Why does the debate continue to be pay to fight climate change or … don’t?

We continue to hear ” fighting climate change is to expensive” in one form or another.

Problem is that this looks at this issue wrong. Sure, right now it is pay to fight or not, but if we don’t in a couple of decades our children will have to pay terms of times more to undo or damage.

In other words, the decision is pay a little now, or make our children pay huge amounts.

What parent makes that decision? What will future generations make of our collective ambivalence?

July 17, 2021June 30, 2022

Amazon rainforest: can it survive Bolsonaro?

I have been writing about Jair Bolsonaro for quite some time. Indeed, those who have been reading this blog for years will know that I became concerned in the run up to the election.

The destruction of the Amazon rainforest is hugely damaging. It is likely to effect the climate worldwide as well as carbon dioxide levels

He has a quite bizarre approach to many things. Indeed, his ruling style is very like Donald Trump. He doesn’t care about Brazil, merely that “his” people do well out of his presidency.

It is quite something, that academics and activists have come together to warn that with the increased attacks on the environmental protections, the Brazilian rainforest would not survive a second Bolsonaro term.

July 16, 2021July 1, 2022

Daily mail fear mongering over taxes on electric cars

The daily mail, a British tabloid newspaper, has a habit of writing sensationalist articles.

They have published an article today which states “Families could face new £765 annual green tax on cars as ministers plan new levies for electric vehicles to fill £34billion black hole left by the death of fuel duty” as its title – with details saying the figure comes from the AA later in the article (AA is a roadside rescue firm).

Now this is clearly click-bait. The article is written to make out that electric cars are going to have to be taxed far higher, in order to make up the governments funding. Now there are several problems with their arguement.

The government spends roughly 1 trillion pounds a year, so 34 billion is roughly 3%. While this is significant, it is amongst the governments total spending, a rounding error. There are many places that the government could raise this money
Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom reached 10.94 billion British pounds in 2019/20, an increase of 820 million British pounds when compared with the previous year.
The improvement in air quality could see a noticeable improvement in health from a breathing point of view. Currently 11 billion is spent a year, on conditions caused or exacerbated by pollution. It would be conceivable, that the benefit to the countries health could alone increase productivity by 3%
The reduction in carbon emissions is likely to lead to a reduction in money needed to be spent on mitigating the damage done

This is the standard form of article that the daily mail puts out, and indeed while there are very occasional articles that share concern for climate change, the daily mail has put out far more which take swipes at electric cars and any other way that the government might try to change our behaviour.

From an article as early as 2010, the writer claimed that the range will never be good enough bizarrely stating that they can drive their diesel car 800 miles on a tank – at motorway speeds, even assuming speeding that is 10 hours during which time you will need at least a handful of stops for food and a toilet break. Modern electric cars can gain 200 miles range or even more in 15 minutes charging.

Indeed, even last year they published an article claiming that 1 in 3 cannot afford an electric car. Now they quoted a figure of at least £2100 spent on their current car as the point at which electric cars would become affordable. By 2030 there are likely to be far more ‘runabout’ cars and similar, but the simple fact, is that most people will be spending at least £1500 on fuel a year. Given that electric cars last longer, and these people they are referring to, are likely to hold onto their car as long as possible, and probably do not buy new anyway we can assume the car is kept for at least 10 years. Electric charging is much cheaper, so you can be expecting to save at least £1200 per year, an amount that more than makes up for the initial higher price of purchase (the article states that entry level electric cars are around £5000 more expensive, so a purchaser will be better off after 4 – 5 years). There may have to be a change in car loan terms, to make borrowing more affordable, but this is all.

Articles on the difficulty of charging, range longevity and many more, are published every few weeks (or more regularly).

What is the daily mails problem?

Every country around the world seems to have a similar publication. Yes electric cars create slightly more emissions at manufacture (though this gap is narrowing) and yes they can be more expensive however prices are falling and the cost of ownership over the lifetime of the vehicle is significantly lower. Importantly environmental costs are far lower, and given the situation that the human race finds itself in, having to cut our emissions to zero pretty fast – caused I should note, largely by the sort of companies that newspapers like the daily mail praises constantly- we have no choice. The best impact that the daily mail can have is slowing the change. Given that the daily mail is based on a island, a place which stands to loose much from extreme global warming not least in terms of land. This sort of slanted analysis is only useful for confirming your biases.

It should be avoided (though the daily mail gives plenty of subjects to write on)

July 5, 2021June 30, 2022

What should we do with companies like Exxon Mobil?

Despite having led the world on climate research, they were having board meetings about climate change and the impact of their activities 50 years ago, Exxon Mobil have spent the last half century putting out slick adverts and then carrying on with business as normal.

As the world wakes up to the incredible threat that climate change holds for the world, they are continue to fight hard against climate change mitigation or reduction in fossil fuel emissions – in private through professional lobbyists, but in public they act the good company taking their responsibilities seriously.

June 26, 2021July 1, 2022

We have seen companies deny global warming what do we do when countries do the same thing?

There is an increasing disconnect between countries trying to do the right thing over global warming and those who are not.

The majority of developed countries have fully recognized the problem and are working towards a solution (certainly now that America has re-joined the effort). What should we do with those countries whose leaders continue to ignore it?

Australia have spent the last few years denying science that shows the earth is warming. I say Australia, I should say the current leaders of their parliament. The view from people in the country is broadly in line with that from elsewhere.

It seems that the period of denying global warming is over. Now we seem to be moving into delaying any need to act.

June 22, 2021July 1, 2022

Re-emergence of sails?

Freight shipping has a huge carbon footprint. It is true that the carbon footprint is far lower than freight carried by air, however this does not help.

However, it is also true that these ships do not travel particularly fast. With the new kite sails designs where a kite with roughly 100 square meters area, and the ability to be flown above 100m – an area where the wind speeds and directions are far more reliable.