Beat Global warming by....rationing LOLZZZZZ

Are we okay with this...?

Linked

In a paper published today in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment, academics argue that rationing could help states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rapidly and fairly.

Policymakers have considered other schemes to reduce emissions, including carbon taxes and personal carbon trading schemes, but the researchers say these favor the wealthy, who could buy the right to pollute if trading were allowed.

The authors argue that carbon rationing would instead allow people to receive an equitable portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet.

The authors were based across the University of Leeds' Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied Center, Sustainability Research Institute and School of History when they conducted the research.

Joint lead author Dr. Nathan Wood, who is now a Postdoctoral Fellow at Utrecht University's?Fair Energy?Consortium, said, "The concept of rationing could help, not only in the mitigation of climate change, but also in reference to a variety of other social and political issues—such as the current energy crisis."

Lessons from the past

Records from World War II show that compulsory food rationing was more acceptable to the UK public than voluntary changes to diet when resources became scarce. The policy aimed to share goods and burdens more equally, regardless of wealth, which was an important part of its popularity and success.

Historic rationing policies also introduced price controls on goods to keep key resources affordable for most people. As a result, rates of malnutrition went down during World War II, despite the shortages.

A key difference between World War II rationing and the climate crisis is public perception, the researchers say. The availability of thousands of garments, gadgets and goods at the click of a button can give the illusion that resources are available in abundance, but the reality is starkly different.

Dr. Rob Lawlor, joint lead author and Lecturer at Leeds' Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied Center, said, "There is a limit to how much we can emit if we are to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. In this sense, the scarcity is very real."

Dr. Wood said, "The cost of living crisis has shown what happens when scarcity drives up prices, with energy prices rising steeply and leaving vulnerable groups unable to pay their bills. Currently, those living in energy poverty cannot use anywhere near their fair share of energy supply, whereas the richest in society are free to use as much energy as they can afford."

Dr. Lawlor added, "It seems feasible to reduce emissions overall even while the lowest emitters, often the worst off, may be able to increase their emissions—not despite rationing, but because of rationing and price controls."

What equitable rationing could look like

The researchers suggest that rationing probably wouldn't be the first step. Instead, policy changes could start with stricter regulations and an accompanying information campaign to communicate the benefits of rationing.

Initially, governments could regulate the biggest polluters, such as oil, gas and petrol, long-haul flights and intensive farming, creating scarcity in products that harm the planet. Rationing could then be introduced gradually, to manage the resulting scarcity with the aim of meeting everyone's basic needs.

The academics identified two options for rationing policy. Policymakers could introduce an all-encompassing carbon allowance, giving out 'carbon cards' like bank cards to track and limit usage. Alternatively, governments could ration specifically selected goods, such as flights, petrol, household energy, or even meat or clothing.

Dr. Lawlor said, "Many have proposed carbon allowances and carbon cards before. What is new (or old, taking inspiration from World War II) is the idea that the allowances should not be tradable. Another feature of World War II-style rationing is that price controls on rationed goods would prevent prices from rising with increased demand, benefitting those with the least money."

According to the researchers, it's likely that rationing would accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy and more sustainable lifestyles. Dr. Wood said, "For example, rationing petrol could encourage greater use of, and investment in, low carbon public transport, such as railways and local trams."

The researchers hope the paper will inspire policymakers to consider rationing as a serious option for fighting climate change.

Sounds like they're looking to legitimize load shedding...

They’re just a bunch of fools. 

There are schemes afoot to intervene, create low level cloud cover etc. But it’s a brave man that would condone proactive changes in the atmosphere. I have more faith in nature.

Of course what never enters the calculation is the 1929 style depression that would result from the scheme above and the associated deaths

Besides what these eggheads don’t understand is nobody paying lip service to global warming is at all interested in giving up their private jet vacations to St. Lucia.

"Can't mechanical trees be made, or some liken device that can convert carbon  dioxide into oxygen that would reverse the process that is changing the makeup of air"

Elon Musk had a competition for the best carbon extractor with a $100M...what happened with that?...carbon is the least of our problems...there's some lethal other pollutants we don't even know about...CO2 might be a greenhouse gas, but at least it's not toxic to the environment.

but have been buying all the climate nonsense

Ah yes decades worth of climate research can all be dismissed as nonsense. Climate change can be considered a fact at this point, any claim to the contrary is not a claim backed by evidence but one driven purely by ideology.

The ButtPlug is too emotionally compromised to process data scientifically. 

There's a lot of nonsense bundled with the facts.

Not true….as I demonstrated to you there is about 0.7 degrees of warming that may be due to man made CO2. The only sense in which run away warming is a fact is that the masses have now been indoctrinated. You too!

Not true….as I demonstrated to you there is about 0.7 degrees of warming that may be due to man made CO2.

Keep telling yourself that.

The only sense in which run away warming is a fact is that the masses have now been indoctrinated. You too!

Yawn .

So if you disagree explain how a tenth of the CO2 caused the same temperature increase in the early 20th century as the hockey stick in recent times

Oh I already have in previous threads. Explaining anything to you is like explaining to an Ostrich with its head buried in the ground. You just don't want to listen.

My-Science, is how!

It’s kinda like my-truth.

Never once said the science was mine.

No its kinda of like the...science?

ButtPlug wouldn't recognise science if it slapped him through his fat face.

This is the guy who "proved" UFOs were real by putting up a picture of what turned out to be a hubcap from a book written by a woman w ho claims to travel to the planet Meton every few months.

I kid you not!

LMAO!

I guess when you've got nothing left . . .

The climate at any one time is affected by several factors which can act independently or together. The main factors include solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, ocean currents and changes in the Earth's orbit.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

1. Increasing solar activity; and
2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun).

Other factors, including greenhouse gases, also contributed to the warming and regional factors played a significant role in increasing temperatures in some regions, most notably changes in ocean currents which led to warmer-than-average sea temperatures in the North Atlantic. Does this mean that solar activity is also primarily responsible for late 20th century warming? In short, no. Solar activity since the 1950s has been relatively stable and therefore cannot explain recent trends.’

‘The climate at any one time is affected by several factors which can act independently or together. The main factors include solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, ocean currents and changes in the Earth's orbit.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

1. Increasing solar activity; and
2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun).

Other factors, including greenhouse gases, also contributed to the warming and regional factors played a significant role in increasing temperatures in some regions, most notably changes in ocean currents which led to warmer-than-average sea temperatures in the North Atlantic. Does this mean that solar activity is also primarily responsible for late 20th century warming? In short, no. Solar activity since the 1950s has been relatively stable and therefore cannot explain recent trends.’

I say at least half, because to assume the natural factors just stopped doesn’t make sense.

And there's your mistake, climate scientists didn't assume natural factors just stopped. They you know did the science thing and actually measured them over time.

So ButtPlug, throws in the towel and concedes defeat. Check mate...

So they measured….but they are still happy broadcasting the myth that man made CO2 caused the 1.2 degree change they claim to have measured.

You are so unworldly you don’t even look at the motivations of the participants. And given those motivations everything is suspect. This is not pure mathematics, it’s applied mathematics based on assumptions. Tweak a few coefficients and you get a totally different result.

And pretty much everybody is coming to the realization that the measures agreed to won’t change anything. A practical approach could have still further reduced the modest impact of man made CO2 and saved crucial oil which future generations are going to curse us for squandering

But we have come up with absurd targets for things like electric cars. How the blue blazes are we going to upgrade the electrical grid sufficiently and find a way to charge all those cars parked in non electrified locations in time.

Answer …we are not. It’s political pie in the sky.

Mozart

You cannot question anything Stav or SB can come up with as to climate change or global warming,    They have been taught a basis for a new Religion not ever to be questioned.   They want a new system in place that would give dictators absolute power to control people 100% - somehow believing that such control would not be to their detriment.   

This type of topic is according to them based on Science - but if this type if report is produced on a so-called scientific basis it remains absolute BS.   Only idiots would believe that it is science-based.   A simple question is how was oil consumption and usage o coal reduced in WW2  - I did not see how it was reduced and the act is food was rationed because of short supply of imported foodstuffs in England and imports fell because of German U-boat activity.   To use that in a science-based study only showed how stupid the so-called scientists are when it comes to practicality.

Hahaha….well said Plum. By the way your restraint in invoking your thrashing of Peeper on the chess board does you credit.

So they measured….but they are still happy broadcasting the myth that man made CO2 caused the 1.2 degree change they claim to have measured.

Climate scientists are doing no such thing. If you go back to the skeptical science article you quoted and switch over to the intermediate rebuttal they even call that a misconception.

A widespread misconception is that anthropogenic global warming has been dominant over the last century. In actuality, CO2 warming has only been dominant since the "modern global warming trend" began in the mid-70's.

Its the media that created the misconception not climate scientists.

You are so unworldly you don’t even look at the motivations of the participants. And given those motivations everything is suspect. This is not pure mathematics, it’s applied mathematics based on assumptions. Tweak a few coefficients and you get a totally different result.

I'm worldly enough to see the hollowness of your arguments. You can't refute the scientific measurements and research so like so many other so called climate skeptics your only other option is to try to discredit them by pushing this vague and unprovable conspiracy that the vast majority of climate scientists are all on some grand global conspiracy that's some how designed to gain control over the masses or that it's all just a money racket. Of course there is never any evidence to back this up. And I say so called skeptic because you're not actually a proper skeptic as you never apply the same scrutiny to your own side of the argument. There is never any question about the motivation of big energy companies and the billions they spend on lobbying against climate change,  nor the agenda's of powerful anti climate media moguls like the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch all of which has better documented by investigative journalism than the tripe push by the anti climate change bridge and definitely more evidence to support than someones nonsense about NASA pushing climate change because it has no purpose. That's why with you its all about ideology, that and intense desire to pass yourself off as an expert on every topic under the sun but who's debating mannerisms gives him no room to reverse course without humiliating himself.

Mozart

The Gobal Warming Religion does not countenance any opposition to the beliefs they inspired in their adherents.    We just had the coolest year in summer in South Africa in living memory - but it is due to global warming going unabated.  

The issue has become a political animal to be used by corrupt and incompetent politicians to feather their own nest and the rest of the people must suffer shortages and told what they may eat or may not eat - what they may and may not use - where they may go for holidays and may not go and if anybody opposes the Governments they are just freezing his or her your bank account like Canada did recently.

It is stupidity that can be questioned in this regard,   There are mad scientists coming up with mad solutions and you get site idiots who support the kind of lunacy - like rationing.    Nobody is against a cleaner and more healthy environment - but what is going on here has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power grabs using Global Warming as a new religion.     

Stav

You really are an amazing thinker.   You talk about the Koch brothers and Murdoch as media owners against climate change - but they own a comparatively little of the media compared to the massive slice of the media owned by the ultra-rich who are pushing the Global Warming Religion as a political agenda.   

Democracy is dying  before your eyes and you support it all out.   That is what is to be expected from a brainwashed fool.    

As for your comment Anger, the scientists should be putting the record straight in real world settings

Oh they try and they also try to set the record straight on far more egregious misconceptions coming from the anti climate change camp, but they don't control what the media or politicians say.

because the false beliefs are  enabling disastrous policies.

I agree that the record should always be set straight, but ultimately this misconception doesn't change the fact that climate change is occurring and needs to combated urgently. The facts are the present warming is greater than then warming that occurred in the earlier 20th century and its accelerating. The warming in the early 20th century was driven roughly equally by man made and natural causes. Those natural causes are not a factor in the current warming. The dominate factor in the current warming is man man CO2 emissions. The window to combat climate change is rapidly closing.

Yes false beliefs are enabling disastrous policies or more accurately a lack of policies, but they are coming from the anti climate change side.

Do you chaps have anything original to say?

The facts might not be original but they are the facts. And who are you to talk about originality. How many threads are you going to post in the vein of "its usually cold at X location, therefore lol at climate change" or "there was little CO2 involved in early 20th century warming, therefore CO2 isn't a major factor in the present warming". I mean these myths are so common skeptical sciences has pages dedicated to debunking them. But let me guess, you're going try to claim you thought of these things independently and it's just a coincidence they are incredible common claims among climate skeptics.  Or lol better yet are you going to try to tell me you are the person who originally came up with the claims.

No it was not driven equally by natural factors and man made CO2. If that was the case the effect of 10 times man made Co2 in the second half of the measurement period would have been far more drastic. If you factor out the lowering effect of aerosols and the subsequent reversal, the warming rate was about the same.

And the facts are not the facts.. .seas have been rising since the 19th century, glaciers have been receding since the 19th century, temperatures have increased an amount that is well within the normal variance of temperatureS.

And yes I did find the early 20th century phenomenon by studying the graphs not the propaganda on Sceptical Scientist. I’m not saying that discussion wasn’t in the literature, I’m saying I came on it independently. So lol to your heart’s content.

We are dealing with statistical models….not mathematical equations. Until those models prove they are robust by projecting temperature change, they are just approximations. And given how small the temperature change is you would probably get better results from simple temperature regressions which ignore the other data.

As for citing that China has just attained its lowest temperature ever and the Midwest has no warming….these are not the weather today in one place. They are the weather forever in the world’s largest land mass and the temperature representing all of the second largest land mass. The fact that you can’t distinguish between that and it’s ‘cold in location x’ tells me you shouldn’t be having this debate.

Stav

The following is the funniest comment I heard for years:-

 "Yes false beliefs are enabling disastrous policies or more accurately a lack of policies, but they are coming from the anti climate change side."

This is what is real BS,   The fact is the biggest idiocy is when politicians grabbed some scenario and made sure they make money out of it,    A typical example is the Covid vaccines policy in the USA was a typical example of it.   The Biden Regime claim that if you do not take vaccines you will die - if you do take it you cannot spread Covid - if you wear masks it stopped transmission.   The scientists declared it was BS - yet the politicians went all out to spread the disinformation.   In the meantime the politicians and bureaucrats stole $5,4 billion allocated for Covid relieve.   

Next one is worse -  a week before the USA Defense Force entered into a contract with Microsoft for a new project costing S125 billion - Paul Pelosi bought $10 million worth of shares in Microsoft after he was tipped off about the issue by his bitchy wife Nancy Pelosi,   What was worse was when Biden was to address the House and included in his speech support for building of electric cars.   Also a week before that Paull Pelosi bought major shares in Tesla.

Government abuse is prevalent when it came to climate change legislation and measures.   The fact is that the same people who push Climate Change in western countries never include China and India - the two worst polluters in the world - in their propaganda.    

While there is justification to fight for a cleaner environment in the world - BS like food rationing and banning cows because they fart is what makes people doubt the sincerity of the situation as well as the objectives of scientists with dubious agendas.     There is way to much propaganda on the issue and the fact is most of the propaganda is real BS. 

"We are dealing with statistical models….not mathematical equations. Until those models prove they are robust by projecting temperature change, they are just approximations. "

Theory based on a lot of assumptions...8 Billion people will influence their environment,  that's a given, we should be looking to adapt to soften the blow and cleaner energy is part of the adaption process. Earth in a perpetual state of climate change regardless of human influence...the over focuss on CO2 and methane is daft...there's a lot more serious pollutants almost totally ignored.