Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Climate breakdown and housing strategy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, Brendan110_0 said:

Question is, when the SHTF who do we hang? The owners of the most polluting companies in history and their decendants?

Humanity.

Some companies might pollute, but they do it because we continue to buy and use the polluting products and plastics.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, skinnylattej said:

The Home Secretary gets upset with 8000 people arriving in dinghies, so Lord knows what it will be like when there are 100 million moving North from Africa.  Summer peak temperatures for the Middle East are pretty bad as well, so Greece, Syria, the Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq will be desperate.

Something else to consider is the vast infrastructure of the oil industry in the Gulf states.  Already some of the polymerisation plants have to slow production because of high air temperatures.

However, Scotland may become more appealing!

 

It has always surprised me that the type of person you meet who still denies climate change is very often also the type of person who would turn the gunboats on immigrant boats.

They just can't join the dots, but that doesn't seem to stop them shouting about how this is all the fault of the Sun becoming a Marxist and kneeling for BLM.

 

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, byron78 said:

It has always surprised me that the type of person you meet who still denies climate change is very often also the type of person who would turn the gunboats on immigrant boats.

They just can't join the dots, but that doesn't seem to stop them shouting about how this is all the fault of the Sun becoming a Marxist and kneeling for BLM.

It always surprises me how the people who bang on about climate change so often deny that population levels are in any way an issue. They just can't join the dots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

It always surprises me how the people who bang on about climate change so often deny that population levels are in any way an issue. They just can't join the dots.

It's definitely a factor. 

But you could have 25 billion people on Earth and that alone wouldn't cause climate change.

The fact is, our climate has been changing since the Industrial Revolution. Which is also probably the biggest driver of population increase since Animal Husbandry, come to think of it.

Going to have massive issues now we've ignored the science for over 30 years, and billions are going to be driven up away from the equator of course. :(

Edited by byron78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industrial revolution allowed exponential global population growth, as did the green revolution. 

Whenever humans naturally reached a plateau for population growth we overcame it via technology and innovation. 

Climate chaos is the first thing we are yet to be able to conquer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

The industrial revolution allowed exponential global population growth, as did the green revolution. 

Whenever humans naturally reached a plateau for population growth we overcame it via technology and innovation. 

Climate chaos is the first thing we are yet to be able to conquer. 

A worthwhile watch for all those on this thread:

My summary of the vid:

The reason for climate change is by and large, the unique explanatory knowledge of humans. However the reason the climate exists in the first place is the non-explanatory knowledge embodied in the DNA of plants. The latter has transformed the planet from its near zero-knowledge state to a garden maybe 1-2 m deep and in places 30m high, planet- wide since life began. The change life has wrought to the original state of this planet is immense. The impact of humans is as yet, fairly tiny.

The message is that we are, so far, the pinnacle of that transformation and that we should if we can transform the rest of the universe. Some eggs, along the way, will get broken. Pristine yet barren places will be, and should be, completely reformed. We should (in some future form) be able to reform at least our galaxy to a similar degree, only then we will be worthy successors to plants. If we sit on our hands and in the meantime risk extinction due to the environment then we truly deserve to be called parasites. Anyone who says Mars should not be 'damaged' by humans is hardly worthy of the term human.

Stasis is our enemy, and also the enemy of the grass and plants around us. Fighting climate change must be about both surviving it, but also beating it in a way that does not require us to suffer in the darkness of 10000 years of sustainability, and holds open the possibility of infecting the rest of the planets of this system and beyond with life, our life and that or our successor species whether man or machine.

If a period of stasis is required to get through what we have done so far, then the most urgent task is to preserve as much of the 100,000 year old cultural heritage we have built up as possible to the other side. While climate change is a real and present danger of our own making, this simple truth appears far too rarely in the debate. Only when the debate includes this positive message, will we be likely to be able to rise to meet the challenge. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to housing choice, I have a house on a very high hill near a mid size city on a large piece of land and with lots of south facing space, ground for heat pump pipes and a strong wind. I take the view that being drowned is more likely than dying from thirst, in my lifetime. It is not the easiest house to heat but in the long run that ain't the challenge and our ancestors managed without central heating.

Also, being on a high hill near a mid size city will make it more likely that I get reception from future decentralised and ruggedised wireless communications. 

I have yet to install any ground source or wind energy but figure I can when it makes sense, and can also knock down old stone walls and replace with something more modern if really required.

And more than that, I do not worry about, because what would be the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

The industrial revolution allowed exponential global population growth, as did the green revolution. 

Whenever humans naturally reached a plateau for population growth we overcame it via technology and innovation. 

Climate chaos is the first thing we are yet to be able to conquer. 

It really does look like it'll play out like the Big Tobacco "smoking isn't bad for you!" lawsuits throughout the 70s and 80s now.

They obviously lied about what they knew about the health implications and then used PR and spin to spread denial.

Anyway. Turns out many of the larger oil companies may well be far more culpable than many realise:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/02/scientists-climate-crisis-big-oil-climate-crimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the OP, my current medium term plan is to stay in Scotland which can take a bit of warming and has good fresh water resources. Of course, it is possible that the North Atlantic circulation shuts down and we actually get significant cooling in Scotland as a result of global warming. That will involve adapting the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, byron78 said:

 

Anyway. Turns out many of the larger oil companies may well be far more culpable than many realise:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/02/scientists-climate-crisis-big-oil-climate-crimes

 

I never trust an article in the guardian or the telegraph (maybe Times as well): ideologically biased and therefore unsound.

State your own views, not those of some paid hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, scepticus said:

 

I never trust an article in the guardian or the telegraph (maybe Times as well): ideologically biased and therefore unsound.

State your own views, not those of some paid hack.

The article contains the direct views of the scientists involved.

I mean...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North America endured hottest June on record Satellite data shows temperature peaks are lasting longer and rising higher

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/07/north-america-endured-hottest-june-on-record

Radio 4 news said scientists were shocked by the speed of it, and  up to 5 degrees swing in extreme temp. 

In relation to the thread title on housing strategy with flood & much greater temps, imo. so many static houses, will become unihabitable, being poorly insulated, more likely to flood and being heavy and immovable to cooler, higher ground.

There will be less money for flood defences, given the financial crisis 

The modular building revolution, has never really happened in the Uk, compounded by housing industry builders rejection and buyers addiction to heavy bricks and a  recent shortage of building  materials where houses could be relocated.

I've not seen any major innovation (such as greater insulation) in the manufactured mobile home industry. But mobility to escape flood & heat is increasingly essential 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2021 at 23:56, scepticus said:

In regard to housing choice, I have a house on a very high hill near a mid size city on a large piece of land and with lots of south facing space, ground for heat pump pipes and a strong wind. I take the view that being drowned is more likely than dying from thirst, in my lifetime. It is not the easiest house to heat but in the long run that ain't the challenge and our ancestors managed without central heating.

Also, being on a high hill near a mid size city will make it more likely that I get reception from future decentralised and ruggedised wireless communications. 

I have yet to install any ground source or wind energy but figure I can when it makes sense, and can also knock down old stone walls and replace with something more modern if really required.

And more than that, I do not worry about, because what would be the point?

An excellent strategy. Make use of facilities while they exist, but maintain your own options. Best of both worlds and what I am aiming for. 

On 03/07/2021 at 12:56, Quicken said:

In response to the OP, my current medium term plan is to stay in Scotland which can take a bit of warming and has good fresh water resources. Of course, it is possible that the North Atlantic circulation shuts down and we actually get significant cooling in Scotland as a result of global warming. That will involve adapting the plan.

Good point re NA circulation - but staying where you are is a good strategy as you do have plentiful natural resources in certain parts. 

If I was starting a business now I would go into residential air conditioning - going to be a huge industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The climate crisis will create two classes: those who can flee, and those who cannot

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/07/global-heating-climate-crisis-heat-two-classes

This week, I received an email from a retiring doctor, who, acknowledging both their privileged economic situation and the personal nature of the decision, nevertheless asked if it “would it be more advantageous/safe to consider moving to coastal Oregon or Washington, rather than staying in southern California” because of rising seas, extreme heat and the growing threat of wildfires. At an Independence Day party this weekend, a couple asked me if they should move from Colorado to Michigan because of growing drought and water shortages in the western US.

 

Those of us who can see this coming and take steps to mitigate the impact to our lives need to talk more openly about it. I like how blunt this reads. As I say, all the scientists I follow are extremely pessimistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2021 at 10:31, Riedquat said:

It always surprises me how the people who bang on about climate change so often deny that population levels are in any way an issue. They just can't join the dots.

Population levels are already baked in, no point in banging on about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Population levels are already baked in, no point in banging on about them. 

Still would be nice for there to be a general acknowledgment that yes, billions of humans requiring huge amounts of dirty energy was a bad idea - without having hysterical kneejerk shrieks of “genocide!” “eugenics!!” and “malthusian!” ie the usual thought terminating phrases that have managed to suffocate green change for decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2021 at 23:47, scepticus said:

A worthwhile watch for all those on this thread:

My summary of the vid:

The reason for climate change is by and large, the unique explanatory knowledge of humans. However the reason the climate exists in the first place is the non-explanatory knowledge embodied in the DNA of plants. The latter has transformed the planet from its near zero-knowledge state to a garden maybe 1-2 m deep and in places 30m high, planet- wide since life began. The change life has wrought to the original state of this planet is immense. The impact of humans is as yet, fairly tiny.

The message is that we are, so far, the pinnacle of that transformation and that we should if we can transform the rest of the universe. Some eggs, along the way, will get broken. Pristine yet barren places will be, and should be, completely reformed. We should (in some future form) be able to reform at least our galaxy to a similar degree, only then we will be worthy successors to plants. If we sit on our hands and in the meantime risk extinction due to the environment then we truly deserve to be called parasites. Anyone who says Mars should not be 'damaged' by humans is hardly worthy of the term human.

Stasis is our enemy, and also the enemy of the grass and plants around us. Fighting climate change must be about both surviving it, but also beating it in a way that does not require us to suffer in the darkness of 10000 years of sustainability, and holds open the possibility of infecting the rest of the planets of this system and beyond with life, our life and that or our successor species whether man or machine.

If a period of stasis is required to get through what we have done so far, then the most urgent task is to preserve as much of the 100,000 year old cultural heritage we have built up as possible to the other side. While climate change is a real and present danger of our own making, this simple truth appears far too rarely in the debate. Only when the debate includes this positive message, will we be likely to be able to rise to meet the challenge. 

 

 

I read all that like I read the text beside paintings in art galleries tbh.

I'm none the wiser afterwards, and if anything I dislike the painting more for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.