always doubt is a key. And take note that the large consensus you are talking about has the solution : citizens have to pay some more taxes. Problem solved.
Some centuries ago, a large consensus was that Earth being flat. Lots of scientists were explaining this with Mathematical formulas.
The only people who don't 'believe' in environmental destruction are those who don't watch any programs about wildlife, ignore all time lapse photographs of deforestation, and basically walk around with their eyes closed. It's there in plain sight unless you completely switch off whenever the information is presented to you. You can see pollution if you simply walk or cycle along a road, but you may be shielded from the sight of it if you are in a car. Try walking along a beach and see what you see. There's no need for belief or disbelief, you just need to open your eyes.
The 'conspiracy' is not on the side of those who are trying to get governments to take action. It's absolutely the other way around. The people who make money from the huge industries that depend on oil and so on are the ones conspiring to trick you into believing that the problems aren't all that bad.
In the past people believed the sun orbited the stationary earth. Careful analysis demonstrated this was not the case but it was a long time before this was accepted, due to religious barriers and so on.
Now, the existing system of 'growth first and deal with the consequences if they occur' is the one being very gradually overturned. There is a global economic system that worships growth, in a very similar way to a religion. Scientists have been pointing out the huge problems for around 40 years. Governments are terribly slow to react because they are worried about their economies (and votes).
I hope the Chinese will take strong action, and as many governments as possible will do so. Then finally the USA can help too when Trump is gone. Similar problem with Russia.
I agree on most with u Scawen. But also there are also many contradictions. For example burning biomass "wood" is gets subsidy for burning wood producing energy. That while burning wood causes twice as much CO2 then burning coal. In NL we cut % more trees then in amazone.
I just don't believe the CO2 story from IPCC.
And I believe we should say goodbye to economic's based on growth.
of course, I hope there is no-one still not understanding this .
What is less obvious is the role of each one regarding what is called global warming, and the price fixed for each to be allowed to continue doing the shit.
For example, currently in France, cars are responsible ( ) of global warming, and so we must pay more and more after time ... but "more and more" is not deterrent of course, it is just a way to get some more taxes paid, and on the other side nothing is done regarding : trucks, boats, airplanes, factories (or not so much)... Aswell, nuclear plants are emitting almost zero CO2 (green energy award ? ).
Diesel engines are said for years and years (and still, even if some cities are planning to forbid them ... NB : side effect, my old VW polo 1.05L petrol from 1989 is to be forbidden soon in some French cities, but my Mercedes C63 with the 6.2L will be welcome for a long time to come !! ) to less pollute because of the weight of CO2 measured (to not even speak about VW and Renault cheating the thing ) to sell more model with this technology (French ...) and still keep an unbanlance of taxes making cars with diesel engines :
- almost as expensive as petrol ones, but more efficient, more performant, etc ...
- registration cost reduced
- less running cost for people who are using them a lot
- been ultra used in cities because a diesel engine doing idle is consumming less (no need to repeat, but less pollution, everyone knows that )
Reducing pollution all over the world is indeed a matter of the numerous people all around the Earth : clearly it is a problem. The way they want to live (lots of meats, lots of everything...), but "us", rich countries people, who are we to explain to China, India, etc ... how do they need to live for the benefits of us (all), while we have created this way of living, and enjoyed it regarding comfort, etc ... ?
But now, when us, rich countries people, are explaining that we must do less and less at our level : why not, but for instance France is less than 1% of the whole population on Earth ==> we can assume it will have a negligible impact on the world ==> governements will still use the taxes and continue their business instead of fixing anything because globally why :
- reducing consumption (less taxes ...)
- invest more and take the risk to loose some things
and in the end having our beloved neightbours on Earth doing the exact opposite because they do not care ? short term money is more attractive.
A side note, in our stupid way of living with lots of CO2 emitted, forrests are better than ever (the ones not yet destroyed ), and stopping suddenly the pollution emitted in the air would make the temperature to rise incredibely fast (probably short term, but anyway the consequences could be quite disturbing I let you imagine) ... I am not so optimistic
The difference in burning biomass in burning coal/oil/gas is huge. When we burn biomass, it's a cycle: carbon from biomass goes to atmosphere in the form of CO2 and then gets absorbed back to biomass. Carbon from fossil fuel does NOT go in a cycle. The carbon that is buried deep underground should stay there but we are digging it up and putting it in the atmosphere! That is the problem - if we were burning biomass only, the net carbon wouldn't increase as much. Now that we are burning lots of fossil fuels, we are increasing the overall quantity of carbon, including CO2, in the surface and that is a problem.
CO2 absorbs a bit of infra-red spectra and that's why instead of earth emitting heat into space, some of it gets trapped.
If you doubt something else about this, feel free to ask.
But yeah, environment good. Remote work good for environment as people can spread out and contribute without commuting needlessly into a central area, driving up costs and wages for that central area.
instead we are all going to battle the consequences of overpopulation. Good luck with that (it's never going to work).
So might want to get annoyed but the only way to fix this is to either start to kill on purpose or start to do some birth control. But, first Jesus needs to come back to tell that from now on it needs to go on a different way because Christianity alone is already 31.8% of the world. Is the pope already handing out condoms? No.
It's just impossible. It's funny to see voices coming from the UK though, dictating that the whole world must start to act different while they discuss for years (!) now in their own kingdom to find some agreement to being able to continue living with each other.
It's not impossible. It's just difficult. I don't know what you mean about voices from the UK. Are you saying no-one from the UK should be able to join in with climate discussions, because of Brexit which is unrelated? Nearly all scientists (globally, not just the UK) agree that we need to change our ways or eventually there will be unimaginable suffering due to the collapse.
Even you agree with that. The only difference is you think there's no point in trying to do anything about it. Your approach seems to be, although this is physically possible, to say that it's too difficult to adjust the way we do things so let's just forget about it and simply continue to make the problem worse.
That kind of thought process is understandable. I won't be here, so why should I care? I believe it's more common among those who don't have children. All the bad environmental stuff is currently getting worse, so most people who do have descendants or simply have some emotional connection with the natural world, think it is worth making some major efforts to improve the situation.
No, we really cannot discuss Brexit here. I'm sure nearly anyone would agree that has become the ugliest mess within the UK for a very long time. On topic, neither the UK alone nor the EU has been anywhere near strong enough on protecting the environment.
This is the exact reason why Trump pulled out of the climate deals. Not one of you can name 1 of the thousands of steps the USA has made to reduce emissions in the past 20 years. China is one of the worlds largest investors in clean energy but we dont talk about that, do we?
This thread has gone to hell with all the above crap. Can we get back to development instead of talking about the co2 in the sky that no one here is physically trying to correct?
Quite! I've been dreading it infecting LFS for a while, either in forum or on track. I was just surprised to see the first mention I've come across here come from you, given your aversion to worm-cans
I used to frequent a particular guitar players' forum, back in the day. There was a lot of off-topic, and it was a friendly, supportive place so they had a rule to keep things civil, "no religion or politics". It was a wonderful thing until they made an exception for song lyrics - on the basis that people shouldn't be barred from discussing songs they'd written on that kind of forum. Ooops. Half the forum immediately started ranting religion in rhyme and a good half of the rest left, myself included.
As we are massively off topic (Thanks Scawen ) there are a couple of points I'd like to make.
Anthropomorphic Climate Change - Whilst human actions on the Planet have a major effect on our ability to survive as a species, ( Pollution, radiation, water abuse ), to believe that humans are solely responsible for variations in Earths temperature is an act of extreme hubris.
Actual science, rather than Greta science, would suggest that we are currently in a warming period whilst still in an Ice Age. Something that actual science shows has happened a number of times in this planets history.
Actual problems facing human existence - Our apparent desire to make our planet unlivable. Unless we choose to stop polluting our waterways, stop irradiating our selves and our food sources with ( Gosh, how did that happen ??? ) massive nuclear 'accidents' that 'no one could foresee', polluting our sea's with plastic waste that WILL kill off fish species that we rely on for food, and, first and foremost,
STOP the massive waste of money, resources, and threat of human devastation that is the arms race and weapons sales.
If the money wasted on this was spent on cleaning our planet then human life would be vastly improved.
) of global warming, and so we must pay more and more after time ... but "more and more" is not deterrent of course, it is just a way to get some more taxes paid, and on the other side nothing is done regarding : trucks, boats, airplanes, factories (or not so much)... Aswell, nuclear plants are emitting almost zero CO2 (green energy award ? 
).
) to sell more model with this technology (French ...) and still keep an unbanlance of taxes making cars with diesel engines : 
)
), and stopping suddenly the pollution emitted in the air would make the temperature to rise incredibely fast (probably short term, but anyway the consequences could be quite disturbing I let you imagine) 
... I am not so optimistic 
) there are a couple of points I'd like to make.