UKH

A new study has found that almost half (49%) of the world's glaciers will disappear by 2100, even if countries succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5°C - the most optimistic warming threshold set in the Paris Agreement - with 50% of the loss occurring in the next 30 years. If warming continues at the current scenario of 2.7°C, 68% of the world's glaciers would disappear in a 'widespread deglaciation', scientists found. 

Read more

Telling that there's not been a reply to this news yet. Just another consequence of our lifestyles that is too big to confront.

I think it may be more that knowing some of the consequences doesn't really alter things. Global warming is happening, it's going to cause a heap load of sh*t in the future (*) because politically, the necessary changes to limit it are always behind the "curve". We're not really sure of the exact nature of this sh*t but we can sure that there will be a lot of it.

(*) 1. Apart from what it's already done.

& 2. The physical things (like glaciers) are relatively easy to predict, the political/sociological changes are much more unknown and likely to be far more scary.

Yes, within decades millions of people will be without water due to the disappearance of the glaciers that feed their water supply - Peru, Ecuador, China, California and others.

A recent study led by renowned James Hansen has proposed that the rate of warming has been underestimated, due to misunderstandings with regard to lag times, oceans holding heat etc, and that:

"...global warming should reach 1.5°C by the end of the 2020s and 2°C by 2050."

The Cornell U page is at: xhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474 and the paper is free to download.

We're already seeing the effects of warming above 1C. No scientist I know ever thought we'd be able to stop at 1.5C, that was politics and marketing. 2C will be pretty bad for lots of people - and it might effect us sooner than we thought.

Indeed. Among the new or updated forum topics just now:

"Lemosho route, Tips for choosing Kilimanjaro trail"

"Climbing tours in Wadi Rum, Jordan"

"First trip to the USA"

"Anti-Atlas, Tafraout in February - climbing partner?"

"Insurance for Everest trek as part of longer trip"

"Wanted: Hemsedal Ice Guidebook?"

"Accommodation in Siurana"

Holidays are a tiny tokenistic aspect. All global aviation accounts for about 2% of carbon emission. 

To seriously halt climate change wouldn't be a case of minor life style changes but radical, almost unimaginable paradigm shifts in the entire way our lives and countries are structured.  

Hi.

I plan to get EuroStar to Paris from London St Pancras Intl then another train from Paris to Fontainebleau. I think Spain is can be done by train to with a few changes.

That is mostly because globally very few people fly. For those that do fly, it makes up quite a large proportion of their carbon footprint.

Yes, and that paradigm shift would include stopping flying for recreation.

I agree. You think about the fact we've just staged a football word cup in Qatar, and the appalling greenwashing to claim it was the first carbon neutral WC, and you realise that no political solution will come until global warming becomes a very present existential threat. Aside from trying to live lightly, lobbying your MP and voting for progressive green policies is all you can do. Unfortunately it won't enough. 

Indeed...

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Both aviation and shipping (I assume this means boats) only account sub 2%  (per type) of the total CO2 production. And I do think it also includes freight.

How ever Energy usage in buildings accounts for nearly 20% of global CO2 emissions. And road transport (both freight and non commercial driving) is also about 11%.

Especially the energy usage in buildings is something that should be looked into, as together with transportation they account for nearly 1/3 or worlds CO2 emissions. Of course the greatest single CO2 producer is industry accounting for 24% of all CO2 emissions.

I think the problem is that if a government proposed changes to actual tackle climate change people wouldn't vote for them. The change in lifestyle would be too big and would no doubt involve taking away some luxuries. 

You are right. But it's the ultra rich who would stop voting / supporting the government(s). The top 10% wealthiest are responsible for 50% of all emissions. They would suffer the biggest lifestyle changes. If the top 10% richest reduce consumption to that of the average european - that would cut global emissions by 33%

So if you want to play your part and cut global emissions, start thinking 'how can I *not* feed money into the pockets of the billionaire class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ElUIm-bd9Y&t=794s

Democracy Now, 17 mins

https://climateuncensored.com/videos/

Kevin Anderson - climateuncensored.com, 4mins

Don't fly, don't drive, don't eat meat. Easy.

Anyone who thinks it's 'easy' hasn't the first idea about the scale of the problem. 

There are already lots of people who do those 3 things. There are then those who know what's needed but 'can't' change.

If you think 'don't fly, don't drive, don't eat meat' is sufficient to solve the problem, you really haven't thought things through. 

Or he was just being ironic.

Funnily enough, I think I would be more likely to vote for a government which was going to price me out of some of those luxuries than to voluntarily give them up when I can still afford them.

Possibly, but there are a disturbing number of people who really believe that a simple mantra such as 'don't fly, don't drive, don't eat meat' is sufficient. It is nonsense. 

I suppose the point I'm making is that there are so many solutions. It's the will to make the changes that is needed. Surprisingly easy  but surprisingly difficult.

If that's the point you're making, you're still failing completely to understand the scale of the problems. Do some sums. Calculate the total proportions of global emissions from flying, driving and eating meat and see what you're left with. It'll be a big number.

Saying that making the required changes is 'surprisingly easy' is naive nonsense.

I understand the scale of the problems. 

And so only affect the not wealthy thus not addressing the problem of climate change nor the issue of wealth inequality which will no doubt be made worse by climate change. Governments forcing industry and landlords to become green at a much faster rate is the only solution and it seems unlikely. They would also need to provide clean transport even where it isn’t profitable, i.e. start running services as a public good not a business. This will never happen in the US and seems less likely every day in the UK. European countries and New Zealand doing this alone will not be enough. China will say they’re doing it while producing huge amounts of concrete. Destruction of the rainforest will continue. Requiring the poor too get insulation, electrified vehicles, and solar panels they can’t afford is laughable. In most wealthy countries the majority of people’s lives are not bad enough for widespread protests while being too hard to put much time into the matter with the urgency it needs. When you work multiple jobs to not be homeless you don’t have much time for lobbying. 

So you would agree that 'don't fly, don't drive, don't eat meat' doesn't come close to being sufficient. 

I don't think it's sufficient, but it is probably necessary? As in, I don't see how we've got any chance of getting people to commit to genuinely hard choices at a societal level as long as even the people who profess to be concerned about climate change seem to think that it'd be too much of a hardship for them as an individual to cut back on, say, their international climbing trips...

You only need to be worth £500,000 to be in the top 10% of wealthy people *in the UK*. It's not about billionaires, or even millionaires. It's about you, me and every single one of us. 

Hard to see how any one thing or even one group of things could be sufficient. It's not that kind of problem.

However, if most people in the UK did the above, the effect would be transformative, and a massive signal that we are up for the challenge.

We're screwed, even countries with the motivation, the money and the technology to go fully green aren't.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64187212

Has anyone read Dieter Helms book, Net Zero? I’m about 30% through. It seems a pretty rounded plan on how to tackle it. 

His key suggestions are effectively:

1. Polluter pays. At a basic level carbon tax, that also applies at the border (unless they also tax it locally), to avoid exporting carbon and make it look like a country is improving. This would he suggests encourage other counties to tax themselves as they’d rather spend the tax revenues locally rather than letting the importing country get them.

2. Public money for public goods. These tax revenues should be spent on things the market is poor at delivering. In short, R&D and infrastructure. 

3. Net environmental gain. Change how we subsidise farming and land management to sequester and improve the environment for current and future generations. 

I’m sure I’m butchering his ideas but think it covers what I’ve read so far….
 

keep flying, driving and eating meat, but have one kid or 0. This will lead to a much much more sustainable future, and not just with regards to the climate.  

Classic copout. That's what us humans do. Put off change.

On a global scale, as someone who presumably lives in the UK, you are in that top 10%.

cannibalism? Release genetically modified coccilithophores that fix more CO2 in the oceans. Use nuclear bombs to shift our orbit away from the sun?

Its absolutely not a cop out, choosing to have one child will benefit the environment much more than any sacrifices even the most extreme (developed world) environmentalist may make while continuing to have multiple children. 

Sadly most cultures still find any sort of coercive polices towards limiting fertility taboo, as a result the number one thing we could be doing to help the environment is ignored.  As demonstrated by the multiple down votes on my original post, having less kids is not even seen as a worthy sacrifice for the environment, why not?

Maybe it's how you phrased it: "but have one kid or 0. This will lead to a much much more sustainable future, and not just with regards to the climate."

If everyone took the 0 option that you're giving them, it's a slow-mo Jim Jones sorta sustainable.

But they won't.

The other thing about having no children is that, rightly or wongly, I suspect one is less likely to be less stressed out by the whole doomed planet thing.

No, they won't. I was suggesting why cc might have all those horrid down votes (not me; I don't do that).

I'm sure one suspects correctly on the other thing. 

your solution is problematic , but not for the reasons you think.

1. you are suggesting that your own emissions can be excused by the extinguishing of another person ( albeit one who hasn't been born yet). Extend this to another person, culture or race and you are definitely on seriously shaky ground.

2. UK citizens are all high consumers. They are in the upper billion of income levels, i.e. those humans earning higher than $46/day in 2017 prices. As such the UK population along with other Level 4 countries ( previously known as first world countries) is responsible for all of the CO2 emissions . Our population is declining but we have provided the model that the other 6 billion people in the world are moving towards. If we can't clean up our act then eventually 11 billion (the forecast population in 2100) will be living as unsustainably as us. Population control has been debunked as a way to reduce population. The only possible way to stabalise population is to take people out of poverty. You could devote yourself to that in a meaningful way by campaigning for foreign aid spending, supporting vaccination and education in the poorest countries. That would have an effect on population. Your approach of personally not reproducing will not have any effect on the overall size of the worlds population.

3. if you actually got behind all sustainable living practices you could be part of the transition to a sustainable future. That future will be lived by our children and grandchildren. And consequently, denying them an existence isn't helping at all, they wouldn't have been part of the problem anyway. And as a parent I can tell you that children are not as highly consuming as adults. My children do not fly, eat meat, drive SUV's, have a home to themselves etc etc etc. Its only a bad parent who produces a high consuming adult.

4. Not having children will make you richer. You think by not having children you can guilt free carry on flying and driving and all the rest. But actually you'll do even more of it. It's the richest in the society that do the worst damage to the climate. 

I could go on but ....

(1) is really pretty offensive. I didn't read any further but I hope it got better.

This is the central dishonesty.  The argument that such-and-such is small and so it doesn't matter.  The idea that China, India and the US are problem.  The justification for no change personally.

Culture is the sum of individual attitudes.  It rubs off on others - locally, nationally and internationally.  Fly less.  Eat less meat and fish.  Consume less.  Drive less.

I suggest that you do read on. and anyway deciding to not have children as a way of mitigating his own omissions is an offensive idea in its own right. If I have offended him by pointed out his ideas logical conclusion then he's only got himself to blame. Why are you fighting his battles anyway?

Short term solution.......don't fly, don't drive, don't eat meat. Long term solution......have fewer children. 

I haven't been on a plane in 6 years. I can't drive. Me and dad twbd to eat more plant based foods.

I think I will have two children.

He didn't say anything about not having children to mitigate his own emissions.

Your "logical" conclusion is absurd and offensive.

Look, I know you have the moral high ground in all these discussions and you are right in most of your arguments, but you do have a bit of a habit of shooting yourself in the foot and undermining your case with some of your stuff.

Nobody is saying that rich people in the west choosing to have one less child is going to solve the problem, but it will mean less CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. Just like other things rich people can do such as cutting back on meat, driving or flying.

Not sure if it relevant or not but I have noticed Easter consumables such as Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns been sold in supermarkets - I find this utterly disgusting. 

No, Im just suggesting that the number of children you have has a direct impact on how much environmental degradation you are accountable for.   Why on earth have you bought race in to this? 

Our population isn't declining we will reach 72 million in 20 years time. Why ignore migration? 

If we can't clean up our act then eventually 11 billion (the forecast population in 2100) will be living as unsustainably as us.  

It is absolutely inevitable that developing countries will want to become like us, why on earth wouldn't they?     This is exactly why it is desirable to slow population growth, everyone wants to and deserves to live the good life, we cant do that sustainably with 10 billion people.

Population control has been debunked as a way to reduce population.  

err has it, says who?  what you fail to mention in with your approach of, have as many children as you want but make everyone rich so that they eventually reduce their birth rates, is that in making everybody rich you will at the same time be multiplying their pollution output, the last thing the enviroment needs is 10 billion rich people.   Even the worlds greenest of technologies are not actually sustainable when spread out between 10 billion people consuming like a middle class. 

The only possible way to stabilize population is to take people out of poverty. You could devote yourself to that in a meaningful way by campaigning for foreign aid spending, supporting vaccination and education in the poorest countries. That would have an effect on population.

Your approach of personally not reproducing will not have any effect on the overall size of the worlds population.

Yes it will have an effect, your depressing logic is exactly the same as everyone else who says what is the point of me doing anything, im just one person and there are 8 billion others.  We need billions of people to to their bit in order to solve this.

I really cant believe this bit, its hilarious. do you not realize your children will grow into adults one day?

Your argument seems to be, have kid so that you stay poor and than you will all pollute a bit less per capita.  while staying poor is indeed the most effective way to reduce your emissions, it is an argument utterly unlikely to convince many to change their ways.

You think by not having children you can guilt free carry on flying and driving and all the rest.

No but I can feel less much less guilty than if I had multiple children and carried on living that way

But actually you'll do even more of it. It's the richest in the society that do the worst damage to the climate. 

Exactly why its important for the richest in society to reduce our fertility rates first.

you've already waffled enough while completely ignoring the central point which is if 1000 first world people choose to have 1 kid instead of 2 we are going to be in a much much better position than if a 1000  reduce their emissions but have 2-3 kids.  You might not like this but it is true and it is the only thing that matters to me.

Don't be too quick to condemn, Sav. As someone who quite recently worked in a supermarket my income depended on people spending their money in my workplace. If they weren't buying hot cross buns they'd want another kind of bun or cake. Anyway, after 5 months of mince pies aren't you glad of a change?

It's dangerous and ignorant to presume. I don't live in the UK. Wikipedia says the average income in France is 2k2 and mine is around half of that, so my polluting power is feeble.

Don't misunderstand this as a shelving of duty. I was born mean and detest waste. I don't need media reports of shrinking glaciers to do the right thing.

Otherwise, I am grateful you obliged me to look at a few stats - my assertions for 'not feeding profits to the 10% richest'  would be better applied to the 1%. It's important that we all recognise how the wealthy ruling class exert influence and control on governments and the populace. They do this in order to protect their own wealth and security, and have little interest in the environment - except as a tool to greenwash their activities.

Understand how to weaken this ruling elite - is the *only* way to make real progress. Because, their greenwash tactics to resolve global warming involve inequitable suppressions of freedom, while maintaining their own wasteful lifetsyle.

It worries me to see this talk coming out on a climbing forum. Do you want to carry on climbing ? How far away is your nearest crag / mountain ? Would you be happy to repeat known ascents ad infinitum ?

We have to find solutions to acceptable travel. Will someone verify that a '1 x 2hr annual plane journey' is reasonable for each citizen ?

That would be ok by me, but let's face it, and plane journey taking 2h can be easily accomplished using ground based transport so I would restrict that to flights that have a equivent or better footprint than alternatives. For instance Norway isn't at all easy to get to in any other form. 

You might also want a return journey.

Tbh, I only ate mince pies during the Xmas and NY period and early Jan. 

You can't claim the emissions of another whether they be a child or an adult. They are not yours to save either. Choose not to have a child or don't, that's up to you but your emissions are all your own. 

And anyway planned savings that *might* not be emitted is the worst kind of green wash. 

Many years ago when I did a Winter Skills course at Glenmore Lodge I took an overnight sleeper train London Euston to Aviemore, as far as I can remember the train departed London sometime after 9pm and arrived at Aviemore at around 8am the next day.

Depending on emissions, is it possible to take a ferry from Scotland to Norway?

When I was in school, our trips to France and once to Italy and once Germany were done by Ferry and coach - this was before long before EuroStar. 

I think Cyprus is hard to do without a plane.

The direct ferry stopped years ago, and yes I suppose you could drive from the hook of Holland but it is a long long way. I drove to Skargen in Denmark where the ferry to Norway departs from and it took 2days. I'm not sure I saved any carbon emissions by using ground transport. 

 I suppose it depends on the vehicle. I think The US is one if those places that are only accessible by plane.  

that fails the 2hr test. Definately would not support intercontinental flights unless perhaps once per decade.

Not "very few", I think. An estimate is that 6 million people fly every day. That is the equivalent of 2.19 billion people flying every year, a significant percentage of the world's population

You can half that since almost everyone gets a return ticket within a year. And then loads of those flying once will be flying multiple times. I'd guess at least half it again.

your entire position seems to be based on the view that absolutely nothing can ever change. A child will take 20 years to grow up to be become an adult. In the UK I firmly believe that by then we will be well on our way to being a carbon neutral society. We have all the means to do so but big change takes time. In 20 years this country could be living sustainable.

There is a bright future for all of the rest of the world too. A future where objective poverty has been removed (15 years according to the UN), all but the most war torn countries will be rapidly approaching respectable health care, life expectancy and economic opportunity. Its already happening. And it is absolutely is not reliant on hydrocarbons. 

The future is however going to made in Asia (because old world rich people don't breed and Asians do (its a fact not an opinion)). China has installed more sustainable energy production than the rest of the world combined and none of it is replacing polluting power its just new power for populations that had none before. 

There are a lot of new coal fired power stations too but they will all be gone in 20 years simply because its a lot cheaper and easier to install wind turbines and photovoltaics in china (and elsewhere). 

I know that just one aspect to a sustainable future but its one we are grappling with now and I see no reason why other emissions can't be addressed. 

 do you really believe that despite all the changes we see around us that 1 billion rich westerners will really fail to  address this climate emergency and ruin it for everyone else? If that is the case then your position is profoundly depressing so I choose another. I choose to believe that we are better than that. In 20 years when todays babies turn into adults they will be able to pursue a rewarding life without damaging the climate.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I know the same people often fly: what I meant was it is the equivalent number. Let's say there are 6 million airplane seats every day each with 1 person in them; that means 2.19 billion airplane seats a year with a person in them

I wish I could share your optimism unilaterally on these issues. Current world politics and wealth generation are based on inequitable exploitation and trade transactions with developing nations. The ruling class historically have no interest in letting go of this deal - which would be necessary to eradicate poverty; what makes you think this will change ?

The boom of renewable energy production looks good, but I am not aware of how they can replace hydrocarbon sources - unless new energy storage systems can be implemented. Which of these do you see as the most promising ?

I can't see any u-turn in carbon emission compensation - except through earth regreening and reforestation. Current models for regreening say it will not be sufficient to combat CO2 trajectory. In which countries can we be most hopeful of reforestation on a scale sufficient to make any impact ?

Top 10% isn't billionaires. It's you and me.

Don't worry we'll all be flying carbon neutral soon anyway

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-64250566

How is that sustainable? How much of the planet will be turned over to making potatoes and rapeseed oil to fix up all the flight emissions. I don't think we can eat all those chips and sustain my flyweight constitution for bouldering. 

There's no doubt we will achieve carbon neutrality, but it'll be 30 years later than we could have done and 50 years too late.

Western countries have become experts at setting ambitious targets, top trumping each other, which they then fail to meet. 

At least the bombing can be carbon neutral

I did a quick search on this. Average salary in this percentile is 82k. Couldn't find definition for the lower limit. If you have a source pls share it.

Neither do I, but as it’s UK climbing it seems like a reasonable assumption that most users live in the UK. The crux of my point was not that you are a filthy dirty polluter (clearly you are not) rather than in the global west we are often much further up the global economic rankings than we perceive ourselves to be. Low salary anywhere in Europe puts you above most in South America/Africa/Asia, which is a massive chunk of global population.

Couldn’t agree more. Personal responsibility matters, but IMO this so the real battle - governments and corporations placing blame on individuals to absolve themselves or unprofitable and unpopular responsibilities.

Viva la (green) revolution!

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-ri...
 

Not the best nor most up to date source, but in the realm of 100,000 usd net worth (so if you own a house…)

Thanks ! But I am now starting to question the detail of Kevin Anderson's logic. He bases the wager on wealth when it should more accurately be spending power - better to name income. There are many house owners who live extremely frugal lives, with correspondingly low CO2 emissions.

Yes, but without what I can only assume is an insane amount of granularity in data analysis these kind of things will only ever be population scale - hence the conveniently-round 50% from 10% numbers, For sure there will be those that buck this trend (either way), but broadly speaking a "western" lifestyle with electricity on tap, transport, heating, transported food etc will always be more energy intensive and polluting than someone who never (and I mean never) travels except by their own power, lives without artificial heat/light et, grow their own food*, etc..

*for clarity - here I'm talking about subsistence farming, not the local allotments

I think he’s referring globally. And then I’d wager the 50% of all emissions is on the low side. Naturally it again Depends on How you calculate it. But the only real way is to count the personal emissions (from travel, heating, energy etc.). Then add the freight and manufacturing of consumables that they use.

Yup, quick Google says that If you have wealth of over 100k USD, then you’re on the top 12% of world population.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/distribution-of-global-wealth-chart/
 

note wealth =/ income. But it includes stuff like value of your house/flat, and car… and your salary.

So difficult to make the decision to change.....now.

Being open to change is a personal strength. I know not everyone has that in abundance but that strength will grow with use. 

It's a matter of pride in myself that I can adapt when objective facts emerge. I can put aside my normal and try something new if the circumstances require it 

The equivalent of 2.19 billion people a year fly. But actually those that do fly tend to fly multiple times in a year, so in absolute terms very few fly. 

In 2018 11% of the world's population took a flight. 4% of the world's population took an international flight. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779

Who here is willing not to do anything for Easter?

I didn't take a single flight that year - not a single one.