COP26: All talk or some real action on climate change?

[Fab Foodie]

Is that the only alternative?

Or stop making new steel in the UK and use only recycled steel, but I don't think that's realistic at the moment (IIRC something like a 20 year timescale).
AFAIK those are the choices.
We need steel to build things now for the Green future. We can import coking coal from Poland/further afield but there's a cost to the environment for that.
So we can either import both steel and Coking coal, or we can make steel here with UK coking coal which in the short to medium term will provide jobs and infrastructure to a pretty deprived part of the country until such time as coking coal is no-longer required. That to me seems a pretty pragmatic way forward if you need steel.

The big falsehood in this debate is that the coal is for burning for energy which it is not.

 

[mjr]

Or stop making new steel in the UK and use only recycled steel, but I don't think that's realistic at the moment (IIRC something like a 20 year timescale).
AFAIK those are the choices.

Is fossil-free steel not possible in the UK?

The world’s first fossil-free steel ready for delivery – https://www.ssab.co.uk/news/2021/08/the-worlds-first-fossilfree-steel-ready-for-delivery

 

[Fab Foodie]

Is fossil-free steel not possible in the UK?

The world’s first fossil-free steel ready for delivery – https://www.ssab.co.uk/news/2021/08/the-worlds-first-fossilfree-steel-ready-for-delivery

That I don't know. I'm guessing that to go that route means either a large investment in UK steel (which is overseas owned) or we'll have to wait until there is enough supply of fossil-free steel on the open market to satisfy our needs. Clearly if Steel in the UK has a long-term future, we need to have been investing years ago, or will have to play rapid catch-up. My understanding was that the Coking coal plant would have something like a 20 year lifespan before the need to ramp down as cleaner technologies became available. My sources are primarily from Radio debates, interviews and regular news, not any specific understanding of the industry.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Agreed.

But...

if the primary objective is to "atone for our sins, past and present", then, I agree, let the less developed Nations pollute, and, require us to reduce our consumption and emissions

if the primary objective is to reduce global emissions, and, hopefully halt climate change, and, if we are indeed reaching the point of no return, then, surely, the approach has to be to go for the low hanging fruit, and/or to follow the old 80/20 rule by tackling the (absolute) big emissions as targets? (wherever and what ever they may be).

But if you have yer average Chinese or Indian is living off one lump of coal per day and westerners living off 10 lumps of coal a day...who should be making the most effort? I appreciate it's a numbers game, but it's also how those numbers are distributed. We are the profligate coal/energy users, not the Chinese or Indians...it just so happens there are a lot of them which skews the data.

 

[matticus]

Bigger countries should do more?? That seems ludicrous.

If you wanted to start a hugely profitable, hugely polluting industry, build your factories in Luxembourg??
If scotland get independence, can they start pointing fingers at every bigger nation??
Madness

Pollution-per-person seems the only rational way to run a planet.

 

[BoldonLad]

But if you have yer average Chinese or Indian is living off one lump of coal per day and westerners living off 10 lumps of coal a day...who should be making the most effort? I appreciate it's a numbers game, but it's also how those numbers are distributed. We are the profligate coal/energy users, not the Chinese or Indians...it just so happens there are a lot of them which skews the data.

As I said, if you want to make significant reductions in emissions then, the sensible approach is to go for the big emitters. I didn't say it was fair.

We are being told this is life or death (I am not saying it isn't), in which case, the "battle" has to be won.

 

[BoldonLad]

Bigger countries should do more?? That seems ludicrous.

If you wanted to start a hugely profitable, hugely polluting industry, build your factories in Luxembourg??
If scotland get independence, can they start pointing fingers at every bigger nation??
Madness

Pollution-per-person seems the only rational way to run a planet.

Wouldn't disagree with that. But, in order to "run a planet", we first have to "save a planet" (or, so we are being told).

 

[mudsticks]

Wouldn't disagree with that. But, in order to "run a planet", we first have to "save a planet" (or, so we are being told).

The oil corps still had far more representation at the COP than many of those small countries on the frontline of climate change.

Those countries already suffering from climate change.

So it's as much about those big companies as it is about individual countries.

Something reasonably well off westernised folks ,who don't want to be 'active' activists can do is put the pressure on to divest their finances from the biggest polluters.

Those corps listen to the money primarily right ??

 

[matticus]

Wouldn't disagree with that. But, in order to "run a planet", we first have to "save a planet" (or, so we are being told).

Also a fair point: but you need to get (almost) everyone pulling in the same direction. I don't think this will help much:
"Yeah, but there's only 60 million of us here, YOU guys need to stop YOUR stuff!"

(Diplomacy eh? It's finding the least worst compromise, I guess ... )

 

[mudsticks]

Also a fair point: but you need to get (almost) everyone pulling in the same direction. I don't think this will help much:
"Yeah, but there's only 60 million of us here, YOU guys need to stop YOUR stuff!"

(Diplomacy eh? It's finding the least worst compromise, I guess ... )

I have to keep lifting my chin, to keep going..

After 30+ years of this you go through cycles of hope and despair.

What really lifted me was seeing the alliances being built at the COP coalition, and other 'side' events.

Where in fact, those grassroot actors, of all flavours are already doing a lot.

As individuals we cant do much
But in our pressure groups, and in alliances between groups working in a similar direction we can do much more.

Then by building on that 'real world' action on climate change' starts to become the 'mainsteam' rather than fringe.

We don't have to get absolutely everyone, 100% onboard.

Just get enough people to believe that real world change is needed, and very soon.

Then those seemingly 'impossible' changes start to look possible.

If they are demanded by just enough people, and it seems to be what is wanted, even by 'ordinary' people, then even mainstream governments come onboard.

A sort of snowballing effect.

Well that's what I have to keep hoping, anyway, to keep going.

 

[BoldonLad]

The oil corps still had far more representation at the COP than many of those small countries on the frontline of climate change.

Those countries already suffering from climate change.

So it's as much about those big companies as it is about individual countries.

Something reasonably well off westernised folks ,who don't want to be 'active' activists can do is put the pressure on to divest their finances from the biggest polluters.

Those corps listen to the money primarily right ??

OK. It matters not if it is big companies or individual countries, still, if we wish to make significant reductions in emissions, quickly, surely, it is necessary to target the big emitters?

 

[BoldonLad]

Also a fair point: but you need to get (almost) everyone pulling in the same direction. I don't think this will help much:
"Yeah, but there's only 60 million of us here, YOU guys need to stop YOUR stuff!"

(Diplomacy eh? It's finding the least worst compromise, I guess ... )

As mentioned previously, I didn't say it was (or would be fair), nor did I say it would be easy. But, if things are as dire as we are told (and, again, I am not disputing this), the actions need to be, above all else, effective.

 

[mudsticks]

OK. It matters not if it is big companies or individual countries, still, if we wish to make significant reductions in emissions, quickly, surely, it is necessary to target the big emitters?

Yes it is.

But some big emitting countries are in a better position to do this than others.

For example India doesn't have natural gas reserves, so relies heavily on coal.

If they could be helped to transition to PV more quickly, then their emissions could be lowered more quickly

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes it is.

But some big emitting countries are in a better position to do this than others.

For example India doesn't have natural gas reserves, so relies heavily on coal.

If they could be helped to transition to PV more quickly, then their emissions could be lowered more quickly

PV?

I repeat, to be effective, the measures should target the biggest (absolute) emitters, who ever they may be. How the measures are funded is a different discussion IMHO.

 

[mudsticks]

Photovoltaics.
Solar energy.

PV?

I repeat, to be effective, the measures should target the biggest (absolute) emitters, who ever they may be. How the measures are funded is a different discussion IMHO.

Sorry this is far more complicatef than for anyone to go

"I repeat" and expect your 'demands' to be met..

If it was that easy , this would have been sorted out years ago, I could have retired from my life of 'middle aged activism' and be spending all my free time on going for nice bike rides.. .

The solutions are far more complex, and less absolutist than that.

However I commend your energy, drive, and committment.

Great to have you onboard, yes the worst polluters (and the richest countries) have an obligation to do the most.

Now go tell the 'others' ..