Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Modi’s net zero in just 49 years is not a good sign – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 1 in General
Modi’s net zero in just 49 years is not a good sign – politicalbetting.com

Modi has just said India will hit net zero by 2070. That's a long way out from 2050 from the world's third largest polluter. There had been optimism one UK side that India at least showed up for #COP26, but that's not the headline they hoped for

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    First - unlike Modi's net zero strategy
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    Pretty much in line with their performance vs NZ, then.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/22/politics.monarchy

    Camilla to be Queen de jure, but known as Princess consort, allegedly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,461
    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    4h
    Why are politicians bothering to keep pretending they're going to do something to prevent climate change? They know they aren't. We know they aren't. Conferences like this all some weird virtue-signalling theatre for the Great & the Good.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,353
    edited November 1
    I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Boundary teamwork!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,477
    That was superb from Buttler. Nailed on MoM unless this goes very sour...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    My god Buttler is a genius
  • IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/22/politics.monarchy

    Camilla to be Queen de jure, but known as Princess consort, allegedly.

    She'll never be the Queen of our hearts.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    edited November 1
    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    Is it a global emergency, or not?

    A hundred private jets in Glasgow suggests that’s still a subject up for debate.

    How many planes flew from Italy alone? Should have been one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    I'm one of those people unsatisfied with all seasons. I don't like the heat, or cold, and the changable nature of Spring and Autumn is no good either.

    If I had to pick a least favourite I'd go with Autumn.

    Laura Kuenssberg:

    Justin Welby on 'cursing' leaders if they fail to act at COP- 'people will speak of them in far stronger terms than we speak..of the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations'

    He went on to say 'It will allow a genocide on an infinitely greater scale. I'm not sure there's grades of genocide, but there's width of genocide, and this will be genocide indirectly, by negligence, recklessness'


    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1455208478994206720

    He seems to have chosen his metaphor with some care, so I'm surprised he was surprised by the reaction.
    Charles said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Cookie said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?

    Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
    It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
    In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.

    In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
    I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
    Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
    Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
    In what respect is Boris "not clever"

    Scholarship to Eton

    Oxford degree

    Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year

    Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too

    Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected

    Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister

    In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series

    Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
    Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever.
    SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
    I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
    Clever or just well educated? There is a world of difference. I ask seriously being one of the few here apparently who are not on intimate terms with him.
    You can also be "clever" and also a complete fool... someone like David "two brains" Willets or Oliver Letwin would fall into that category.
    Was it James II/VII who was described as the "wisest fool in Christendom"? Or was it another king?
    It was James I.
    James II was never king - he was Charlie II's brother wasn't he?
    1685-88
    Up to his 'abdication'. Odd that he did not seem to agree that he had indeed done so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    GIN1138 said:

    I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

    From the Beeb

    "As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

    But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

    In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

    He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

    And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    4h
    Why are politicians bothering to keep pretending they're going to do something to prevent climate change? They know they aren't. We know they aren't. Conferences like this all some weird virtue-signalling theatre for the Great & the Good.

    I'm sure they'll do some things. But it is not going to be as much as they suggest, even if what is agreed is a damp squib.

    Maybe I'm cynical, but aren't international agreements announced at summits about as reliable as an MoD project budget estimate or a government IT procurement?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,477
    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    It’s starting to look like they are not a bad team...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Cracking fielding
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455
    Don’t worry, we’ll get there in 2050 and lead by example.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    kle4 said:

    I'm one of those people unsatisfied with all seasons. I don't like the heat, or cold, and the changable nature of Spring and Autumn is no good either.

    If I had to pick a least favourite I'd go with Autumn.

    Laura Kuenssberg:

    Justin Welby on 'cursing' leaders if they fail to act at COP- 'people will speak of them in far stronger terms than we speak..of the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany because this will kill people all around the world for generations'

    He went on to say 'It will allow a genocide on an infinitely greater scale. I'm not sure there's grades of genocide, but there's width of genocide, and this will be genocide indirectly, by negligence, recklessness'


    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1455208478994206720

    He seems to have chosen his metaphor with some care, so I'm surprised he was surprised by the reaction.
    Charles said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Cookie said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    Can Bozo deliver a speech to COP without being an embarrassment to the nation?

    Hope he doesn't start waffling on about the Roman Empire. WTF was that about? Guy seems to think he's some 'amusing' raconteur down the pub half the time. You know the type. Mile wide, inch deep.
    It was a dog whistle to all those kipper types who fetishise Rome and think that complex multi-generation historical events can be explained by saying "forrners bad". He knows what he's doing and he is an arsehole for doing it.
    In the interview I saw he was referencing "open door immigration" in Rome's fall. Free movement. So, yes, now we've tightened up on that, we can return to our Glory Days. Oh dear.

    In general, what I hate is this patina of cod "ancient learning" he sprays about. Guess some like it, find it illuminating or impressive, but I'm totally Shania Twain about it - and him.
    I have long thought that Johnson is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person looks like.
    Have heard this phrase before. What is the intelligent person's idea of what an intelligent person look like?
    Someone who can express complex ideas clearly rather than using complicated language to obfuscate or mislead. In the political realm I guess I am thinking of someone like Clinton or Blair. In the modern Tory party Hunt or Sunak seem to me to have those qualities. If you're impressed by frequent forays into schoolboy Latin then you will think Johnson is a clever chap.
    In what respect is Boris "not clever"

    Scholarship to Eton

    Oxford degree

    Highly successful journalist - eventually making £300k a year

    Highly successful editor of the oldest magazine in the world, and one of the most prestigious magazines, too

    Successful mayor of a World City, re-elected

    Won an 80 seat majority as Prime Minister

    In the meantime he has written multiple books, and presented TV series

    Feel free to point out British politicians who are obviously cleverer and more accomplished
    Have you read his books? They are crap. Oxford is full of not very clever people. Earning >£300k a year doesn't mean you are clever.
    SKS was DPP. Sunak has a first from Oxford and an MBA from Stanford. Javid earned millions at Deutsche having been born with few of Johnson's advantages. I think there are plenty of politicians who are as accomplished and clever as Johnson.
    I've met him. He's notably clever. It is silly to pretend otherwise
    Clever or just well educated? There is a world of difference. I ask seriously being one of the few here apparently who are not on intimate terms with him.
    You can also be "clever" and also a complete fool... someone like David "two brains" Willets or Oliver Letwin would fall into that category.
    Was it James II/VII who was described as the "wisest fool in Christendom"? Or was it another king?
    It was James I.
    James II was never king - he was Charlie II's brother wasn't he?
    1685-88
    Up to his 'abdication'. Odd that he did not seem to agree that he had indeed done so.
    Jacobite!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927

    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    It’s starting to look like they are not a bad team...
    Say it quietly, but they really should be tournament favourites.

    I’ll be in Sharjah on Saturday for the South Africa match.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    It’s starting to look like they are not a bad team...
    Say it quietly, but they really should be tournament favourites.

    I’ll be in Sharjah on Saturday for the South Africa match.
    I think we should lose that match if it means knocking out the convicts.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/22/politics.monarchy

    Camilla to be Queen de jure, but known as Princess consort, allegedly.

    She'll never be the Queen of our hearts.
    But we will be the tampons in her toilet bowl.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    I think it's great that Adam Boulton is wearing a tartan tie today.

    UK OK
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

    From the Beeb

    "As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

    But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

    In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

    He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

    And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
    Yup. The first thing is get India and China signed up to a promised date. Then bring it forward.

    Given the India-China rivalry, this will be politically possible.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Is that Priti Patel in the audience at the cricket? She looked very enthusiastic.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    It’s starting to look like they are not a bad team...
    Say it quietly, but they really should be tournament favourites.

    I’ll be in Sharjah on Saturday for the South Africa match.
    I think we should lose that match if it means knocking out the convicts.
    Indeed, there might be some interesting permutations on the last day of the group stage…
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,477
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    It’s starting to look like they are not a bad team...
    Say it quietly, but they really should be tournament favourites.

    I’ll be in Sharjah on Saturday for the South Africa match.
    And with India all at sea too. Happy not to be ‘favourites’.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Oh, Morgan and Roy again. :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Sandpit said:

    Brilliant fielding from England in Sharjah.

    30 from 9.

    It's basically all over now.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,585
    Under Modi, India has gone from a free country to a partly-free country, per Freedom House.

    India’s status declined from Free to Partly Free due to a multiyear pattern in which the Hindu nationalist government and its allies have presided over rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population and pursued a crackdown on expressions of dissent by the media, academics, civil society groups, and protesters.

    https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2021
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    They think it's all over... it is now...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Given that England were 47/3 after 10 overs, that’s an astonishing result.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Really excellent victory

    England are ruthless
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because its not as much as people wanted.

    I'm not really sure what people expected though.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,782
    Fantastic victory.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Buttler is a phenomenon
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because it is a long time.

    I believe this and the Chinese commitment are the first such commitments by their two nations.

    The Chinese one is a restatement of a commitment made in 2020, IIRC.

    I think the Indian announcement is the first time India has set a target, at all.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    The nutter on Politics Live today was saying how much better the French were when they hosted the event in Paris.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    I imagine because India is both third biggest contributor, and arguably most exposed to danger (Southern end of Bombay to be reclaimed by the sea, 11 other cities at risk, Delhi, Calcutta, bombay and Chennai all overheating), and you'd hope on both grounds they would try for an earlier target.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,707
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pretty much in line with their performance vs NZ, then.

    I've just noticed that the only team in England's group with a net positive run rate is the only team that has not played England yet ...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    We mercilessly stripped India of its priceless reserves of anticarbon, and tied anyone who complained to the mouth of a cannon.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    Well, so far both India and China have signed up to *something*

    Which is massively more, than a couple of years ago, was thought to be likely.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,438
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/22/politics.monarchy

    Camilla to be Queen de jure, but known as Princess consort, allegedly.

    If she pipes up it is certainly the end of the Monarchy. Traditional views may be that she doesn't have her head in the right place...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    I'd say (with my ingrowing cynicism) that Boris will get flak regardless, as there are plenty out there who regard going for BJ as equally as high a priority as anything else - as a Tory Govt is EVIL and has to be destroyed.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    Know your Nats: A handy guide to Scotland's noisiest minority
    With thousands of delegates arriving from around the world, Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay presents this tongue-in-cheek guide to the various types of Scottish nationalist.

    https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/comment/know-your-nats-handy-guide-25349004
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    No matter what is or isn’t agreed, the #FBPE mob and the Lobby have already decided that the most positive outcome needs to be presented as an utter failure.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 2,714
    edited November 1
    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,743
    2070 as a target is better than no target and chances are it will be met well before then as India brings cheap renewables online and the people realise that their polluted cities need zero emissions vehicles and zero emissions energy sources to make them liveable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,188
    I don’t really believe in god but Josh Buttler does make me pause.

    He also seems an incredibly nice guy, always self deprecating, modest and giving credit to others. If we need a god he would do.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    The key thing is to ensure China, the US and EU and UK, Canada and Australia reach net zero by 2050.

    If they do then they will have greater weight to get India and others to come into line too by then
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    The summit is already a success.

    In the lead up, or now at the summit, the USA, China and now India have all committed to Net Zero and set a date on it. Almost every other major country on the planet has done so too, and its only a couple of years ago that the UK was the first major country to do so.

    If you'd said a couple of years ago that every single country would have committed to Net Zero and most by the middle of this decade I wouldn't have believed you.

    Sharma and Boris have done a good job.
  • Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.

    Progress, certainly, but probably not enough to save London. Still, never mind.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,438

    Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.

    More has to be done. We all know that.

    I'm pretty sure that nobody was helped along in their thinking by the application of glue between motorways and daft people though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704

    Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.

    Progress, certainly, but probably not enough to save London. Still, never mind.
    As long as the true capital, Winchester, is ok.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    That's probably true, but I am curious if she or other groups have set some official 'goal achieved' measure, such as net zero by 2030 etc, no matter how unrealistic that might be.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191

    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 779
    Nippy invading my CNN safe place.

    CNBC it is
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    The summit is already a success.

    In the lead up, or now at the summit, the USA, China and now India have all committed to Net Zero and set a date on it. Almost every other major country on the planet has done so too, and its only a couple of years ago that the UK was the first major country to do so.

    If you'd said a couple of years ago that every single country would have committed to Net Zero and most by the middle of this decade I wouldn't have believed you.

    Sharma and Boris have done a good job.
    China committed to 2060 over a year ago, so not really in the lead up.

    The arguments for a physical meeting get thinner and thinner; is there really a difference between Modi being there vs Xi not? Brazil apparently are unning a huge lovebombing "how to stop worrying and learn to love the destruction of the rainforest" campaign, so it gives a platform to them and to that bleating ninny Welby. Enough. If this is the 26th in the series, that is plenty.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    IshmaelZ said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    I imagine because India is both third biggest contributor, and arguably most exposed to danger (Southern end of Bombay to be reclaimed by the sea, 11 other cities at risk, Delhi, Calcutta, bombay and Chennai all overheating), and you'd hope on both grounds they would try for an earlier target.
    I'd say that this will get pulled forward as they get to grips with it, just as we continue to hone in on ours.

    In some respects we have been on this for 25 years now, and to expect that a country with 1.2 billion people with a GDP of $2100 per head jump straight to a 30 target from now seems like too much.

    Surely this is about low carbon development.

    I'd say that this (and other similar) is one place to pivot our aid budget as it comes back. We have the model in Astra-Zeneca, and helping 20 or so places develop self-production facilities, whilst EuCo created a big expensive plant in Europe, and plan to export from there.

    We should do renewables and zero-c where we can lead - offshore wind, and perhaps modular nuclear - pioneer projects, and encourage development of local industry to drive societal development.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.

    Progress, certainly, but probably not enough to save London. Still, never mind.
    It'll do wonders for Dartmoor house prices. So there's that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    The summit is already a success.

    In the lead up, or now at the summit, the USA, China and now India have all committed to Net Zero and set a date on it. Almost every other major country on the planet has done so too, and its only a couple of years ago that the UK was the first major country to do so.

    If you'd said a couple of years ago that every single country would have committed to Net Zero and most by the middle of this decade I wouldn't have believed you.

    Sharma and Boris have done a good job.
    China committed to 2060 over a year ago, so not really in the lead up.

    The arguments for a physical meeting get thinner and thinner; is there really a difference between Modi being there vs Xi not? Brazil apparently are unning a huge lovebombing "how to stop worrying and learn to love the destruction of the rainforest" campaign, so it gives a platform to them and to that bleating ninny Welby. Enough. If this is the 26th in the series, that is plenty.
    I think expecting the summit to "achieve" much depends upon how you measure it.

    Its a bit like Christmas as a parent, you're not going to get presents 'delivered' on Christmas day unless you've put in the work beforehand. But having that date set provides a date that everyone organises for.

    So yes the summit itself probably won't achieve much, but simply by having the summit its concentrated minds and got commitments that might not have happened had the summit not been happening.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    edited November 1

    Only a couple of years ago people were talking about net zero by 2100 as an aspiration.

    Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.

    Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.

    Progress, certainly, but probably not enough to save London. Still, never mind.
    All those triple-decker basements will flood. Oh dear.

    At least they will all have fish-tanks as deep and as pretentious as Thierry Henri's.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,393



    I think expecting the summit to "achieve" much depends upon how you measure it.

    Its a bit like Christmas as a parent, you're not going to get presents 'delivered' on Christmas day unless you've put in the work beforehand. But having that date set provides a date that everyone organises for.

    So yes the summit itself probably won't achieve much, but simply by having the summit its concentrated minds and got commitments that might not have happened had the summit not been happening.

    I think that's right. Imagine they'd had a Zoom conference instead. It would have had 1% of the coverage, and nobody would have felt the need to make much of a commitment about anything. Here, everyone who turns up feels they need to say somthing meaningful, and even just focus on the subject, rather than only on the pandemic or tax cuts or a dozen other things that are also important.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    I think he got that off PB. We won't know for certain till he calls the PM a lyeeng sack of, 'ow you say, jeezz, though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

    From the Beeb

    "As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

    But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

    In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

    He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

    And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
    China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement.
    His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    Are you counting the polar ice caps?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,393
    edited November 1
    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    I'd say (with my ingrowing cynicism) that Boris will get flak regardless, as there are plenty out there who regard going for BJ as equally as high a priority as anything else - as a Tory Govt is EVIL and has to be destroyed.
    That's certainly true, but the opposite is true too - whatever resolution the conference comes up with, the Government will claim it was a resounding success. One has to look beyond the rhetoric at what is actually promised before, during and directtly after the event.

    A one-minute PPB that my lot are showing at our stand there, in case anyone is curious:

    https://youtu.be/OEY64a4TsUI
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741

    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    I remember when a certain Emmanuel Macron warned that underestimating Johnson was a serious mistake.
    I think the other reactions on that thread demonstrate my comment about the priority of abusing BJ.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    edited November 1

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    I'd say (with my ingrowing cynicism) that Boris will get flak regardless, as there are plenty out there who regard going for BJ as equally as high a priority as anything else - as a Tory Govt is EVIL and has to be destroyed.
    That's certainly true, but the opposite is true too - whatever resolution the conference comes up with, the Government will claim it was a resounding success. One has to look beyond the rhetoric at what is actually promised before, during and directtly after the event.

    A one-minute PPB that my lot are showing at our stand there, in case anyone is curious:

    https://youtu.be/OEY64a4TsUI
    Fair comment !

    I think my immediate comments on the 'PPB' (!) would be:

    1 - The definition of "factory farming" is not clear, so there is an issue with not setting a goal - rather doing the "MOAR! MOAR! MOAR!" thing that the Green Party do; IMO it is destroying them. I have a problem with "do what we say" where no destination is specified.

    2 - I need to see a reconciliation of the aims of more extensive farming (ie lower productivity), more food security (ie local), and lots more land for forests. I have yet to see a credible analysis of that. Does such exist?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    Are you counting the polar ice caps?
    Cap, surely?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 1

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    That looks like the map I mentioned the other night. My house is still there, under the ‘h’ of Bournemouth and with the beach only 100m away instead of 230m, while almost all of London is gone to fish…..yet John Lewis insurance think mine is the greater flood risk.

    A shame I won’t live to see it as a beachside villa.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    edited November 1
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    A quick google says you’re wrong.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

    (average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,924

    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I mean it's not great but Xi staying away basically makes the whole thing redundant anyway?

    From the Beeb

    "As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.

    But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

    In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."

    He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.

    And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
    China has four times the CO2 output per capita of India, and haven’t bid anything, since his letter is a mere restatement.
    His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
    You sound a bit angry about it. Why not look around you and compare the amount of made in China shit vs made in India shit you own? It might turn out that you personally are a tiny bit complicit in the imbalance.

    And it seems to me that writing a 2060 letter trumps turning up in person to say 2070.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    tlg86 said:
    Because he was up for the annual Godwin Grand Prize otherwise. How did he expect the Jewish community to react to a comparison with their genocide?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 1
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    A quick google says you’re wrong.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

    (average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
    RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,668
    edited November 1
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    Er, the Antarctic glaciers (and that's where most of the world's ice is) are something like 3000m thick.

    For example Vostok station is 3,488 metres above sea level, and sits on Lake Vostok, 4000m below (ie the lake is below sea level).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    As your part of the world is going to be a furnace like Death Valley. The Middle East is going to be amongst the least inhabitable parts of an overheated world.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,393
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    I'd say (with my ingrowing cynicism) that Boris will get flak regardless, as there are plenty out there who regard going for BJ as equally as high a priority as anything else - as a Tory Govt is EVIL and has to be destroyed.
    That's certainly true, but the opposite is true too - whatever resolution the conference comes up with, the Government will claim it was a resounding success. One has to look beyond the rhetoric at what is actually promised before, during and directtly after the event.

    A one-minute PPB that my lot are showing at our stand there, in case anyone is curious:

    https://youtu.be/OEY64a4TsUI
    Fair comment !

    I think my immediate comments on the 'PPB' (!) would be:

    1 - The definition of "factory farming" is not clear, so there is an issue with not setting a goal - rather doing the "MOAR! MOAR! MOAR!" thing that the Green Party do; IMO it is destroying them. I have a problem with "do what we say" where no destination is specified.

    2 - I need to see a reconciliation of the aims of more extensive farming (ie lower productivity), more food security (ie local), and lots more land for forests. I have yet to see a credible analysis of that. Does such exist?
    Re 1 - there's a limit to what one can say in 1 minute (our estimate of the time a delegate will linger at our stand)!
    Re 2 - we're releasing a detailed "solutions" report on Friday. Essentially the proposed deal is
    * substantially less meat consumption in the developed world (but perhaps more in the poorest countries)
    * less intensive farming, which becomes a viable solution if we don't have to produce as much meat
    * less deforestation, because much of the Latin American clearances are entirely due to growing soya to feed the intensive farms.

    The basic issue which this tries to get around is that feeding masses of soya and grain to animals, rearing the animals, and then eating them, is a very inefficient use of grain. We don't deny that if the future is more and more meat consumption, then factory farming is what will meet the demand. But we argue that eventually we will simply run out of land to feed the system.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Roger said:


    Fr/UK relations are in bad shape

    Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted

    The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering


    https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20

    Macron might be seeking to win the adoration of the FBPE Twitter crowd with that childish language.

    Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
    ....Childish language!

    "We won't roll over...."

    Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act

    (.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
    "We won't roll over" is a quite reasonable statement of what you're going to do, or not do.

    "malevolent clown" is just rolling around in the gutter.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    Are you counting the polar ice caps?
    I was not.

    But let's have a little play there too, shall we?

    Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.

    But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.

    Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.

    Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.

    Let's add the South Pole shall we.

    That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Diplomacy, French style:

    SYDNEY, Nov 1 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison lied to him over the cancellation of a submarine building contract in September, and indicated more efforts were required to rebuild trust between the two allies.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-macron-says-australia-pm-lied-him-submarine-deal-2021-10-31/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    A quick google says you’re wrong.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

    (average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
    RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
    How's that an error?

    If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,668
    edited November 1
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    A quick google says you’re wrong.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

    (average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
    RCS’s top of the head calcs do sometimes contain a gross error he’s overlooked. In this case it’s that a chunk of that “covered by water” percentage is sea ice, including much of the Arctic and Antarctica, which is where a lot of the extra water would come from.
    Melting the sea ice won't raise sea level!

    #Archimedes
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    edited November 1
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    The only problem with the Indian announcement is how to blame the UK government. Blaming the India government won't happen.
    That does rather tie into how much flak Boris will get if the whole event is a bit lacklustre. Nations used to take months or even years to thrash out agreements sometimes - though granted we can communicate a lot faster - and presumably that's still the case behind the scenes, so unexpected breakthroughs at summits and the like must be pretty rare. How much is any host expected to personally 'achieve'.
    The summit is already a success.

    In the lead up, or now at the summit, the USA, China and now India have all committed to Net Zero and set a date on it. Almost every other major country on the planet has done so too, and its only a couple of years ago that the UK was the first major country to do so.

    If you'd said a couple of years ago that every single country would have committed to Net Zero and most by the middle of this decade I wouldn't have believed you.

    Sharma and Boris have done a good job.
    China committed to 2060 over a year ago, so not really in the lead up.

    The arguments for a physical meeting get thinner and thinner; is there really a difference between Modi being there vs Xi not? Brazil apparently are unning a huge lovebombing "how to stop worrying and learn to love the destruction of the rainforest" campaign, so it gives a platform to them and to that bleating ninny Welby. Enough. If this is the 26th in the series, that is plenty.
    If they were really serious, they’d have made a massive media point of doing it remotely, talking about nothing else for a week and telling the great and good that remote meetings are the future, as they’ve learned over the past couple of years.

    Instead we have what looks closer to 200 than 100 private and governmental planes scattered all over the UK tonight, giving the opponents of such conferences all the ammunition they’ll ever need.

    They couldn’t even persuade Gates and Bezos to arrive on commercial flights.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    Yes, but the Antarctic ice cap is much thicker than 100m. The sea level has been significantly higher in past geological times.

    Even a couple of meters floods an awfully large area of the world's most fertile, productive and inhabited land.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    On topic.

    Why is this not a good sign?

    Because no matter what is agreed to, it;s not good enough in the eyes of Greta.
    As your part of the world is going to be a furnace like Death Valley. The Middle East is going to be amongst the least inhabitable parts of an overheated world.

    32C today, was fantastic. Looking forward to the winter. :D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,461
    Research by the 'Wear Warm' campaign found nearly half - 48 per cent - of Britain's homes are heated to 24C seen in Barbados this time of year.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10151995/Energy-experts-blast-T-shirt-tweakers-heat-homes-hotter-BARBADOS.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,503
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    So we've done all the developing and then we are upset when developing countries want to do their own developing.

    If all the developing countries develop in the same way that we developed, we'll look like this in a few thousand years' time. Birmingham for the win!

    image
    I don't believe that.

    Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)

    I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).

    That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
    A quick google says you’re wrong.
    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

    (average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
    1.5km thick ice sheet?

    Wow. Sounds like I could be wrong.

    That seems awfully thick. I mean the highest height in Greenland is only about 3km above sea level.
This discussion has been closed.