COP(out)26 is up and running.

[Suff]

Net Zero is a far more viable goal than anything else offered.

I mean real Net Zero, not carbon credit purchase. It means cutting your emissions to the point where you can capture (forests or others), at least as much carbon as you emit.

And I do mean real Net Zero, including calculating how much emissions we import with our goods.

As for forests and $145mn? Compared to the billions that deforestation is worth? If they are not going to be serious then why should anyone take them seriously?

And, just to add. Many of these forests have been removed to produce food for all those people who arrived. What are they going to do? Let them starve?

[Workingman]

Do stop talking sense... you'll hurt people's brains making them think about things.

[cromwell]

Save the planet says Boris as he boards a private jet to fly back to London

This is what may derail support for climate change action.
I lack the background to know if Co2 emissions are going to fry us all eventually. I'll take the opinion of people who know more than me.

But what I can see is this.
Elitism, hypocrisy and authoritarianism from the people at the top who are pushing the climate crisis.

Billionaires who fly everywhere in their private jets telling Joe Soap he's not allowed to take the family to Majorca for a fortnight for a holiday, once a year?
Get tae f***, as the Scots say. Hypocrisy.
400 private jets going to Scotland for Cop26?
Cabinet Members pushing heat pumps, none of whom have a heat pump installed? Allegra Stratton pushing EV's when she drives a diesel? Or Joe Biden and his 85 car motorcade?
And it's soon going to be clear what the vax passport is for - do what we say or you're going nowhere. Authoritarianism.
Make the price of meat and dairy higher. OK if you are rich - not so much if you aren't. Elitism. Consumption will be restricted by extra taxation on energy. Again, if you are on a millionaires income, no problem. If you are struggling already on a fixed income, big problem. Elitism.

The people who are pushing hardest for climate change measures are those who are going to be least affected by those measures.

If there is lukewarm support for climate change action it's not hard to see why.

[Suff]

Save the planet says Boris as he boards a private jet to fly back to London

This is what may derail support for climate change action.

And that is where everyone falls off a cliff. No we can't have EV, no we can't have Heat Pumps. But, by GOD, we can stop all those RICH b'stards from flying and screwing our world up.

Global aviation (including domestic and international; passenger and freight) accounts for:

1.9% of greenhouse gas emissions (which includes all greenhouse gases, not only CO2)
2.5% of CO2 emissions
3.5% of ‘effective radiative forcing’ – a closer measure of its impact on warming.
The latter two numbers refer to 2018, and the first to 2016, the latest year for which such data are available.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transport sources, compared to 74% from road transport

https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html

What is even better is the image below. Please note that Transport is 16.2% of global emissions.

So when you see the press going their mile about BoJo getting on a plane to fly back to London..... Maybe he should have got in a car, along with all his staff in cars and their staff and....? Or on a train powered by Diesel. Or on a train powered by electric produced by Gas and Coal.

If you want to have an effective debate about Global Warming, you need to know what it is all about. Not what some crackjob wants to tell you.

[Workingman]

Suff, you have spectacularly missed the point Cromwell was making.

Reams of facts and figures are meaningless to Joe and Jane Bloggs and other millions of them, it is what the elites and the rich and the politicians ARE doing whilst telling others NOT to do them that angers so many. What are seen as 'double-standards' causes an ebb in support of neutrals and then the evangelical CC deniers use such deeds to their advantage - to get their point across. They certainly use fact-free and emotive language to their advantage. Go look at some of the comments sections in the press and BBC for details.

And yes, I do know that 90 minutes on a plane makes perfect sense compared to five hours on a train or seven and a half hours in a car, but the public's perception says otherwise.

What I will question is whether the Johnson needs to be in parliament for every sitting and then be in Glasgow the next minute. Surely there must be someone in Cabinet competent to stand in for a while. They managed it when he caught Covid-19 and the sky didn't fall in.

[Suff]

And yes, I do know that 90 minutes on a plane makes perfect sense compared to five hours on a train or seven and a half hours in a car, but the public's perception says otherwise.

I know you know. But the point I'm making is that Joe and Jane Bloggs haven't been told the truth because the "ists" want to get rid of the planes and force people to live life the way they want it to be lived.

Not only is the plane faster, it actually emits less CO2 overall.

Joe and Jane Bloggs need to be told the truth on that. Long haul flights can't be done any other way. Short haul flights, when full, emit less CO2 per passenger than droves of busses and trains running nearly empty. It is an agenda thing.

What I will question is whether the Johnson needs to be in parliament for every sitting and then be in Glasgow the next minute. Surely there must be someone in Cabinet competent to stand in for a while. They managed it when he caught Covid-19 and the sky didn't fall in.

True, it's a point. But, in fact, his office is in London and he should not be impeded from getting there when he has to go to specific events.

Running the country is not quite like running the corner sweet shop. Yet, it appears, everyone says "why can't it be like running a corner sweet shop". The answer to that is obvious. Because if they did you wouldn't like it very much....

[Workingman]

And so COP26 heads for its finale.

What of any consequence was achived? The square root of sweet FA, that's what.

There was a programme the other night 'Life at 50 ºC'. The series should have been shown on a 24/7 loop on all screens in the COP complex and the hotel rooms of the delegates, and at full volume! (It's on iPlayer)

None of us, not one, would want to live their lives. It even affects the rich, as the woman in Kuwait showed. At least she could mitigate some of the problem.... by turning on the AC, thus creating a hot-cold loop.

Hers was a microcosm of the global problem. In attempting to cure one problem she was creating another. We are all on the same path.

[Suff]

This is simply an exercise in damage limitation. Those heads of state didn't come to talk about what they were going to DO to fix this mess. They came to make sure that what was decided was limited to exactly what they wanted to give and not a step further.

I replied with this in the first 10 replies.

It wasn't hard to anticipate...

[Workingman]

It wasn't hard to anticipate...

No, it wasn't.

We have been doing this since Rio in 1992. It has now become an annual shindig with massive promises and little delivery. We might as well give up

My (hopefully) only grandchild is coming up to two yrs old. By the time she is 30 (2050) The very best years of her life will be behind her, and declining. Her remaining years will be Hell on Earth and no number of heat pumps and EVs are going to save her.

THERE IS NO SUCH BLOODY THING AS "NET ZERO" - IT IS A FICTION.

We cannot do it, and, more importantly, many of us do not want to even attempt to do it. We like what we have got now and want to keep it, others want to catch up.

As good as we are with technology and science they are not going to save us. There are just too many of us.

[Suff]

My youngest Grandchild is not yet 1 year old. She is going to live in a very different world to the world we live in today.

There is such a thing as Net Zero, but it needs to be clearly defined. World Net Zero means the entire world emits less CO2 than is absorbed by the environment around it. The sea takes up about half of it and grows its absorption capacity so that maintains as we expand CO2.

Simply put, as we have seen, it is never going to happen because a large chunk of the world thinks world wide Net Zero is a negotiable thing. It isn't.

Then there is country by country where they may claim Net Zero by creative accounting. No country is going to count import CO2 emissions by another country and no country is going to count the CO2 emissions of their export transport.

So whilst the words are incorrect, the sentiment is bang on.

I used to spend quite a bit of time on RealClimate where the climate scientists hang out and talk to the smart and the not so smart. I recall Copenhagen where they went with a spring in their step, applauded the speeches by the great people, rode a high, till the weasels arrived and dismantled just about every single resolution which would do anything to reduce AGW. I read the statements by the crestfallen where they said they would never, ever, again, contribute to a UN assessment on climate change.

In the end I realised that I knew everything I ever needed to know about AGW. It is real, it is here, the life of our progeny is going to degrade, decade by decade, until it will not be recognisable. Especially as every attempt to even try to stop it happening is blocked as soon as it is spoken. So why go there and watch it in pure technicolour? Or 8k wide screen?

Knowing but not being able to do anything about it. It's not worth it, better to live my life out and let my kids know about it and just move on.