February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount

I think it's important that everyone of us does his or her part in this. Gas is cheap - but that doesn't mean we need to buy fuel guzzlers. Electricity and water are hard to quantify, but in the end, we now have the option of buying LED bulbs and showering instead of taking a bath. There are many other ways that people can contribute - eating less meat, walking to the next tube station rather than driving, taking the train rather than flying etc. etc. - I believe everyone knows best how he / she can do something to improve things, even though in the greater scheme of things it'll be a small contribution.

Loudzoo wrote: This is a video that may give you some hope. Its 1hr 30 mins but if you care about this stuff it is WELL worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H79-s2fOLh4

Have actually read his book. He makes a good point, but climate change isn't just about economics. Further some behavioural changes are pretty low cost but can make substantial difference - like becoming vegetarian or driving less etc. This isn't even to mention the damage to animal life.

I agree climate change is about much more than economics. What Lomborg argues though is that becoming a vegetarian, driving less, using efficient light bulbs etc etc makes no material difference to climate change. It's a palliative with next to no impact on expected temperature increases. The whole of Europe reducing current emissions by 30% results in a fraction of a degree cooler temperatures than would be the case if we maintained current levels, by 2100. That is not enough. The actions you suggest merely serve to make us feel less guilty. What we need is a fundamental shift in energy production.

I absolutely approve of people (currently using a lot of fossil fuels), reducing their usage and encourage people to do that but it won't make any difference to the climate. Emerging economies will massively offset any reductions we make, as they develop.

Damage to wildlife and the environment from climate change is currently minimal compared with mass deforestation and habitat loss due to man's industrial activity. Unless we stop that destruction there won't be much wildlife left to protect from climate change.

It’s not a popular view but sometimes the truth isn't popular.

Two more points:

1. We have to adapt. During the last interglacial (100k years ago) temperatures were significantly higher than they are now and sea levels were 6-9m higher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian). That can happen perfectly 'naturally' without any influence from man. Unless we adapt to climate change (man-made or not) we will remain vulnerable.
2. Support investment in R&D. Spending vast quantities of money reducing CO2 emissions with inadequate replacement technology in rich countries will have no material impact on global warming. There were over 1000 coal fired power stations being planned across the globe as of 2012. We need something else.

Perhaps we can talk more about this when I see you in the summer Incidentally the massive spike in temperature in recent months is due to the biggest El Nino since 1997 / 98. I am happy to go on record in predicting that the global mean temperature anomaly will be lower than it is now, this time next year

House got built next door a year or so ago (yes they finally finished it). It's funny meditating in the evening, I have a nice room with a balcony and big doors which open out to a view, and next door has all the lights on inside, windows shut, air conditioning running all day and night.... I can just feel the power being sucked from the grid by it.

By comparison, meditating in breeze cooled, dark room, I've only got my fridge running in the kitchen
:lol:
Then multiply next doors behaviour by the population amount
:pinch:

I agree - people waste a huge amount of energy. The thing is that domestic consumption accounts for 11% of energy use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#By_sector

Even if every home in the world used zero electricity we would hit the temperatures expected in 2100 by about 2109.

That is not going to solve the problem.

If the temperature projections are correct we need to go to zero global emissions asap. The only way to do that is a Manhatten / Apollo size project to nail the new technology. Thinking that "we are doing our bit" by being 50 or 75 or 100% more efficient at home is great but it won't solve the problem.

Apologies for being so stark but if the projections are correct this is quite important

Loudzoo wrote: The whole of Europe reducing current emissions by 30% results in a fraction of a degree cooler temperatures than would be the case if we maintained current levels, by 2100. That is not enough. The actions you suggest merely serve to make us feel less guilty. What we need is a fundamental shift in energy production.

But the thing of it is we are rich, we can do these things. This matters because while emerging economies are now large contributors to climate change much of their excuse for doing little is because we aren't doing anything ourselves. Someone needs to lead by example, then everyone else can follow.

IMHO People won't react until the crises hits them individually/personally. They don't know, or want to know, yet, until they feel it. It won't be too late, I hope, to fix it just a bigger job. People, in general, are not good at avoiding problems but rally well to fix them.

No matter how long I live or how many life's I claim to have, the weather will do as IT sees fit. We can go to schools and educate our self about a many things but in the end we can only pen what we see. Ranks Akkarin, this will defiantly help me to " think" better on my own decisions.