Greenhouse Gases Must Peak In 4 Years. Oh, And Lifestyle And Behavioral Changes

Who would have thought a scientific report could say things like this?

Greenhouse gas emissions must peak within 4 years, says leaked UN report

Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years, coal and gas-fired power plants must close in the next decade and lifestyle and behavioural changes will be needed to avoid climate breakdown, according to the leaked draft of a report from the world’s leading authority on climate science.

Rich people in every country are overwhelmingly more responsible for global heating than the poor, with SUVs and meat-eating singled out for blame, and the high-carbon basis for future economic growth is also questioned.

The leak is from the forthcoming third part of the landmark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the first part of which was published on Monday, warning of unprecedented changes to the climate, some of them irreversible. The document, called the sixth assessment report, is divided into three parts: the physical science of climate change; the impacts and ways of reducing human influence on the climate. (snip)

The report underlines the lifestyle changes that will be necessary, particularly in rich countries and among the wealthy globally. Refraining from over-heating or over-cooling homes, walking and cycling, cutting air travel and using energy-consuming appliances less can all contribute significantly to the reductions in emissions needed, the report finds.

Eating patterns in many parts of the rich world will also need to change. “A shift to diets with a higher share of plant-based protein in regions with excess consumption of calories and animal-source food can lead to substantial reductions in emissions, while also providing health benefits … Plant-based diets can reduce emissions by up to 50% compared to the average emission intensive western diet,” the report says.

Weird that it always seems to come down “scientists” trying to get governments to force citizens to change their lives, isn’t it? By wealthy, they mean “pretty much everyone in the 1st World”.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “Greenhouse Gases Must Peak In 4 Years. Oh, And Lifestyle And Behavioral Changes”

  1. Dana says:

    Me, converting the second half of my sister’s old fence to greenhouse gasses, yesterday.

    • david7134 says:

      You should be ashamed of that small fire. My weekly fire is three times that size. If CO2 has an effect on the climate, then let’s gets more in the atmosphere as I like the changes.

      • Dana says:

        It actually gets bigger, because the wood from the fence my sister took down was dry as a bone; it had been up for probably 25 years. I had burned the first half of it the previous day, after having the material on the burn pile for over a week, because I wanted to wait until after a heavy rain, where there’d be plenty of moisture in the surrounding grass and foliage.

  2. Hairy says:

    Whether you burn it or let it rot doesn’t matter wood is renewable energy source

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      What Hairy said.

      • Kye says:

        By that standard so is oil, gas and coal. They all renew it’s just a matter of how long it takes.

        But it is nice to see you two Blind Mice missed Dana’s entire point. You really are just monkey’s typing.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          They’re stoned and will pretty much believe anything.
          https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gif

          Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          We got his point, Dementia.

          Are you certain that we’ll renew oil, gas and coal over the next few hundred million years? Is that soon enough to help?

          You likely don’t know this but plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into complex carbohydrates like cellulose. When the plants are burned or rot the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. That cycle doesn’t take a few hundred million years, so Mr Dana proudly burning wood hoping he’s adding to global warming is not.

          • Dana says:

            The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:

            Are you certain that we’ll renew oil, gas and coal over the next few hundred million years? Is that soon enough to help?

            You likely don’t know this but plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into complex carbohydrates like cellulose. When the plants are burned or rot the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. That cycle doesn’t take a few hundred million years, so Mr Dana proudly burning wood hoping he’s adding to global warming is not.

            You write as though plants absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere somehow discriminate as to the source of the CO2. Last I heard, the plants absorbing CO2 couldn’t tell the difference. There is as much chance of the Danial Boone National Forest, which is within 100 yards of my property, has absorbed CO2 molecules from the local coal-burning power plant as from a wood fire.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Mr Dana is concerned that growing plants can’t discriminate between coal CO2 and burning wood CO2. It’s true! But over a short period of time plants take up as much CO2 as they give by burning, being consumed or rotting. It’s almost as if plants are offsetting their CO2 emissions!

            Neither coal, gas nor oil are taking up CO2, but only releasing it. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing from the burning of oil, gas and coal, not from plants.

          • Dana says:

            The persistent Mr Dowd wrote that there was some sort of balance between the CO2 plants absorb and that released from burning them. Thing is, people in the civilized world — which is, admittedly, far too small a portion of the whole world — have been planting more and more trees and other plants, so civilized human behavior is adding to the CO2 absorption of plants.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The prolific Mr Dana is correct that people plant trees, bushes and shrubs, yet atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.

            Here’s a ten year old description of the Earth’s carbon cycles, both the slow and fast carbon cycles. It’s a good, but long, read on the Earth science of carbon.

            Atmospheric CO2 is but one component of the carbon cycles that also includes biomass, rocks, sea sediment and ocean water, but atmospheric CO2 has been increasing steadily as a result of our rapid burning of fossil fuels, carbon that had been locked away for hundreds of millions of years as part of the slow carbon cycle.

            https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

    • gitarcarver says:

      According to Hairy, the law of conservation of energy is no longer in effect.

      “Renewable energy” is and always has been a marketing term. It is not science or physics.

      People like Hairy hate actual science.

      Then again, all the left has is hate.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        People like gitar don’t understand science.

        Then again, all the right has is misunderstandings. And hate.

        • gitarcarver says:

          People like gitar don’t understand science.

          “Renewable energy” is not science. It is anti-science. The term is marketing, nothing more.

          Elwood thinks that energy can be “renewed” because the left hates science.

          Hate is all the left has.

        • david7134 says:

          No Jeff, guitar understands science, you don’t. But more than anything, guitar knows bullshit when he sees it and that is all you have.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Doogie,

            Solar and wind energy do not violate the law of conservation of energy as gitar claimed.

            8th grade science class should have taught you about kinetic energy and potential energy.

            gitar prefers to distract by arguing about meaningless minutiae.

          • Dana says:

            The educated Mr Dowd wrote:

            Solar and wind energy do not violate the law of conservation of energy as gitar claimed.

            But the harvesting of them does have effects. If I were to set up a windmill to generate power on my farm — I wouldn’t, because we don’t get sufficient wind during the warmer months, but whatever — the wind energy harvested would mean less of a cooling breeze for the rest of the farm, specifically the porch we enjoy when the weather is right, because that wind energy was intercepted to move the windmill blades. The harvesting of solar energy results in a change in the amount of solar energy reflected back out into space, resulting in more energy, in the form of heat, retained on earth.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            We understand Mr Dana’s desire to defend Doogie and gitar, but changing the subject is not the way to do it.

            The percentage of kinetic energy intercepted by your hypothetical windmill is trivial compared to the overall amount of wind on your farm.

            Same applies to solar panels.

          • gitarcarver says:

            Solar and wind energy do not violate the law of conservation of energy as gitar claimed.

            Really? Go ahead and renew the sun.

            Secondly, while you may claim that solar power does not violate the law of conservation of energy. the fact of the matter is that the energy within the wind is used to drive a turbine which is energy converted to work. (Totally within the conservation of energy.)

            That work done to make the turbine turn is a loss from the energy. But you aren’t getting that energy back at 100%. And you cannot “renew” the wind.

            You aren’t “renewing” energy at all.

            It’s a marketing ploy to make people think they are getting the holy grail of physics – a perpetual motion machine that runs on itself or creates energy / work out of nothing.

            The law of conservation of energy destroys the idea of “renewable energy.”

            You have to wonder why the left hates science that much to lie to people.

            You have to wonder why some people say “the details don’t matter,” when it is often the details that show the fallacy of a belief.

            Fact of the matter is that the left hates science, and hates the truth.

            Then again, all the left has is hate.

        • Jl says:

          “Greenhouse gases must peak….Meanwhile slow Joe, while demanding that we get rid of fossil fuels, is asking OPEC for more oil so we can be the Middle East’s little bitch again. Trying to stop ours, while asking someone else for theirs. Who knew libs were hypocrites? https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1425535086594822147?s=21

  3. Hairy says:

    Lol
    Oil renew ? I thought according to the Bible all were made less than 10000 years ago?
    Seriously in our own country do you think capitalists will ever build another coal fired plant?
    In fact catalyst have almost stopped building gas fired plants
    Construction of new gas fired plants

    • Kye says:

      Yes, oil renews or are you unaware of that? So now you believe in the Bible? I thought all you communists considered the Government your higher power.

      Seriously, since I don’t have a crystal ball I have no idea if anyone will ever build a coal fired plant or not. I believe the fascists have made it unprofitable so I doubt it but if we need energy who knows.

  4. Dana says:

    The article cited by our esteemed host begins:

    Global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years, coal and gas-fired power plants must close in the next decade and lifestyle and behavioural changes will be needed to avoid climate breakdown, according to the leaked draft of a report from the world’s leading authority on climate science.

    So, the report has, in effect, set yet another tipping point, August 12, 2025. If we aren’t beginning the downward slide at that point, we can dispense with all of the economy-killing and people-impoverishing plans after that point, right?

    Oh, silly me! How could I have forgotten? There will always be another tipping point we haven’t quite reached. I’ve kind of lost track; how many have we already passed?

  5. Hairy says:

    There are more oil rigs driving now under Biden than under Trump
    We export about 2 times as much oil in Bidens first year as we’re exported under Trumps last year

    • Kye says:

      Show us your citation.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Someone might want explain to the little stoned retarded Buddhist that Trump’s policies enabled oil producers to begin to maximize drilling and produce more barrels for exportation.

        Joey had nothing to do with it. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif

        #RollAnotherOne
        Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • david7134 says:

      John,
      Why not just tell us what federal policy was used by Biden to increase oil production. Also, Biden stole the election.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9857 access attempts in the last 7 days.