Climate Change...is the UK wasting it's time?

Question

I heard on the news the other day that the total quantity of green house gases produced in the UK is approximately 2% of the worlds total.

It all seems pretty pointles to me.

Answer 1

your rite.but your still doing your bit,and that makes you feel good no matter what,eh?

Answer 2

I don't know how many people listened to the BBC Radio 4 programme about the Stern Report, but it is obvious that it is now largely discredited. Nevertheless, it is on the basis of the Stern Report that our leaders have chosen to react and base their green credentials.

However questionable the Stern Report may be, the question posed here is simply ludicrous.

If there is concern about CO2 in the atmosphere, then it is extremely important to understand that 95% of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely natural, and even that doesn't to amount to a great deal; CO2 being only slightly more than a trace element in the atmosphere.

Of the remaining 5%, only 4% is directly attribuatble to CO2 emissions from things like power-stations, industry and transport: America currently responsible for over half of it.

Without going into all the facts and figures, it is obvious that when dealing with scientific results, it is important to be very precise.

Any concern about CO2 emissions MUST be restricted to the 4% of total CO2 in the atmosphere CREATED BY THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS, which has nothing much to do with the other 96%.

If America accounts for roughly half of that, then that can be seen as 50% + of man-made emissions (called anthropogenic emissions), or as 2% of total atmospheric CO2. The UK contribution is very much smaller than this, but still significantly higher than many other countries.

The ongoing science of global warming requires very accurate figures, and it is for this reason that the Stern Report falls into the category of science-fiction.

A further problem occurs, especially in the UK, when politicians jump on the band-wagon of green-issues and predict the impending collapse of civilisation due to global-warming, when in point of fact, that is a problem which "may" happen perhaps 50 to 150 years from now IF the predictions turn out to be the right ones.

The last thing we need is junk-science such as the Stern Report, which amounts to scaremongering at its worst, and which contributes nothing to the serious business of ongoing scientific investigation.

The forthcoming IPCC report is likely to totally contradict the findings of the Stern Report when it is released in the near future.

================

In response to Mr "ftm pools," I wonder how CO2 has become such a leading issue in green affairs, considering that infinitely more damage to the environment is likely to occur from industrial pollution, depletion of resouces and over-population?

One must assume that the motor-car is a soft target, and one which is a winner when it comes to potential tax revenues.

Answer 3

Yup, you're right. The U.K. only accounts for approximately 2% of the world's CO2 emissions.

Using the UN's calculations, if the U.K. stopped producing CO2 today, by 2035, our huge sacrifice would result in a reduction in global temperature of six one thousandths of a degree C. So, that's 0.006°C.

That seems pretty pointless to me too.

Whenever anyone asks a question about global warming, you always get the scaremongers plying their trade; trying to frighten people with bizarre and ridiculous claims.

The current "scaremonger award" winner for this question (so far) has to be 'James C' with his truly astonishing claim...

"...a thousand diiferent studies conclude that the most likely out come of 480 ppm concentration of carbon dioxide is a world that is 90% uninhabitable..."

Blimey!!!

LOL

It's enough to make you weep.

Answer 4

It is all a big big BIG con.
The gov. jumped on the green issue not because there is proof that human behaviour is effecting climate change, or we can do anything about it in the UK.
IT is all to do with energy conservation as we have run out of gas and oil. We don't really want to be that dependant on Russia and Asia for our energy.

Couple more facts for you
One of China's many coal mines that are on fire right now produce more C02 than all the cars in the UK

Hybrid cars are bad for the environment as they use so much energy to build.
China is making a new coal power sataion every week

Answer 5

It is never pointless, and everybody can do there little bit, do you remember twenty years ago a global disaster called the ozone layer, which scientists said would never go away, well twenty years later with the whole planet working together to ban CFC products and we have fixed this hole in the ozone layer.

Here are the little things you can do.

Change bulbs to energy saving when they break
Turn applicances off not standby
If a short distance walk instead off the car
Use public transport when possible
Turn the central heating down one degree
Recycle house hold waste

These are little things that everybody can do for there bit, be green and a leader for the survival off the human race, This is the only planet we have do not destroy it for the future generations.

Answer 6

Here's something people might find interesting, "Why do some countries have higher Greenhouse gas emissions than others?" (http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2emissionsctry.htm )

It has a map showing the CO2 emissions for each country in colors.

According to the source, UKs per capita emissions "remain well above the world average, although not dissimilar from much of Europe". So if the reasoning for every country is that they only contribute a small percentage of the total, so why bother, then it's clear that nothing will get changed.

--------------------------------------------------

There are those that want to deny, minimize or rationalize the threat away. To those, my reply is:

From a book published by Harvard University Press: "In 2001 a panel representing virtually all the world's governments and climate scientists announced that they had reached a consensus: the world was warming at a rate without precedent during at least the last ten millennia, and that warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activity." (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WEADIS.html ). So, for the most part, scientists have been in agreement about this for the last 6 years.

Continuing research by mainstream science supports those conclusions. According to the US EPA, the US Climate Change Science Program CCSP) released a report in May 2006, "which addresses some of the long-standing difficulties in understanding changes in atmospheric temperatures and the basic causes of these changes." (http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html#ref ). When I look at the CCSP report, it says, "Our best scientific understanding is that:
• Increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (which are primarily due to fossil fuel burning) result in largescale warming of the Earth’s surface and troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere." (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf ). I encourage everyone to have a look at the full summary of the report for themselves and decide for yourself. It's easy reading.

NASA says, "the general consensus among scientists is that global warming is real and its overall effects are detrimental" (http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf , page 6 )

In fact, it is so detremental that the Attorney General of California has filed suit against the 6 auto manufacturers and 5 utilities here in CA. (http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/cms06/06-082_0a.pdf?PHPSESSID=bcafe4e63eecea93153f25e6fe5bc9ba , http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=709&year=2004&month=7&PHPSESSID=5fa0700eb86a845983a94e26ab86a46e ) for ignoring the IPCC statements, stating in the lawsuit, "Defendants knew or should have known, and know or should know, that their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and to the resulting injuries and threatened injuries to California, its citizens and residents, environment, and economy."

There really is little controversy in the scientific community on this issue. There's a small handful of vocal people, many of whom have strong ties to the oil industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics ) who are keeping the debate alive. Many of the people I encounter who vigorously oppose the majority opinion are christians who are convinced that this is a sign the world is about to end and the rapture will soon be here or are libertarians who are more concerned that the government will have another excuse to raid their pockets than with what the consequences of our actions 100 years from now will be. My comment is a modification of what Upton Sinclair said - It's impossible to make a man understand something when maintaining his religious or philisophical belief system depends on him not understanding it.

Whenever people claim that the work of this or that group of scientists representing the dissenting minority position is reason to avoid concern over global warming, I am always curious as what percentage of scientists publishing what percentage of peer reviewed journal papers that group constitutes. I believe that as long as there are still two people left in the world, there will still be disagreement about something; if we wait for all the scientists in the world to agree, we will wait forever. Don't forget, there are still so-called scientists that dispute evolution.

About the bogus volcano issue that is sometimes raised, "Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!” http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Now that the oil companies here in the US have begun to abandon their position and Pres Bush followed suit a few days ago in his State of the Union Address, I am hopeful that the US will ratify the Kyoto Protocol and join in the efforts worldwide to slow the progression of global warming.

No, we can't stop it and at this point in time, we can't reverse it, but the slower it happens, the more time we have to cope with the changes and minimize their harmful effects.

-----------------
BTW, it was said above, "America currently responsible for over half of it." That's a bit of an exaggeration. The US contribution was 25% in 2003 and I haven't been able to find anything more recent. (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions ) Please, 25% is bad enough; let's not double it.

Answer 7

Wasting our time?

For heaven's sake, this is the fate of the planet we're talking about!

For all those saying their is not enough proof hasn't read any primary sources are are reading the oil industry's PR material.

The science is unsure of the exact timescale and limits, but when a thousand diiferent studies conclude that the most likely out come of 480 ppm concentration of carbon dioxide is a world that is 90% uninhabitable, we should be all hands to the deck! We need to get a bloody move and and fix this mess!

Wasting of our time, just because China is bigger! We have a huge chance of pulling this off and getting the rest of the world on board towards the required 80% cuts. But even if it was almost entirely futile, you couldn't call it wasting our time.

Answer 8

This is not a waste of time, and this is not pointless.
Does it really matter WHAT the % is.........
We already have the proof (by the extreme and changing weather) to name just a couple of things.
We need to wake up and start taking responsibility for our own actions. We are ALL contributing to global warming, and if we ALL
did just one thing it would make a difference.
It's NO good blaming India and China. If we
added up the last 50 years of our pollution whilst they were still riding bikes and living extremely low impact lives, it still would,nt be a patch on their current situation.
I guess we ALL need to pull together and stop passing the buck. This is for our children and grandchildren. Do we really not give a S..T about their future.

Answer 9

It is all pretty pointless no matter where you live there is not now nor was there ever anything we can do to alter the climate. Thats not to ignore that there is a warming trend in progress that is undeniable however there is no proof that we have anything to do with it. As a matter of fact the evidence touted by the left and the pro human problem scientists seem to have missed an even more inconvient truth and that is the ice shelf is growing in Antartica it is a fact. Ever heard that anywhere else before? look it up then ask your self why you have not heard that before.

Answer 10

we have a choice, we all either try not to completely destroy the planet by not being selfish and doing everything we want without regard to the consequences (what we have done so far) or we can choose to not be a parasite to the Earth.

The UK is pretty high on the list ranking in the top ten, but by far the biggest death beast is the US. US is more than 50% of the problem.

Answer 11

It is easy to feel overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, and it is so easy to feel that your own effort is so insignificant in that big picture that you might as well not bother.

But wouldn't you rather know you did something to reduce the harm we are causing the earth, rather than know you continued to ignore it, and by doing so, continued to contribute to the problem?

If you want to change the world, start with yourself and spread the message to friends, family, colleagues. Doing something positive is infectious. If the residents of the UK all took this seriously, our government would have to respond in a much more positive way too, and they could apply pressure to other governments, and so the snowball grows....