In Europe, our Governments are excitedly going green, signing up to strict carbon budgets, but ignoring inconvenient truths and then finding the business sector giving them the middle finger anyhow. Further to that, Europe's forests are being consumed in fires in this recent heatwave. In England yesterday,fires were going in forests, grassland & houses; rail services were out because the rails buckled in places; and websites were down because data centres got too hot and some servers had to be switched off. I recognize, As a guy educated by Jesuits in high class Skullduggery, 'carbon budgets' are done differently everywhere and feature some of the most creative accounting achieved yet.

An example of an 'Inconvenient Truth' is that all these forest fires are turning what was carbon sinks (trees, grasslands, etc.) into carbon sources which then stop being carbon sinks for decades to come. But that never gets factored into equations. Another thing that hardly goes down is gas being burned off at oilfields. Another large one is animal feed - grass/hay, sileage, straw. It's a carbon source once it's cut. But if it's exported, the country doesn't count it. But the country that imports it doesn't want to count it either.

My point is: Is it safe to assume that 100% of the statistics we are given about global warming paint a rosier picture than they should?

#1 the answer to your question is "yes, projections probably are more optimistic than reality".
#2 That said, the entire "carbon" balance and budget concept is about what you CAN do and what you DO, not what happens that is out of your control. Governments cannot claim wildfire carbon unless those governments are SETTING wildfires. SCIENTISTS can take them into account for projections, but only by estimating how many wildfires will happen and how large the will be (which will never be exact).

"Simply, trust your instincts."

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Plan accordingly.

Kindly remember that all of this is the progeny of a few hundred people who believe that they now possess the means to impose their will upon millions of people ... simply by promising "endless wealth" to the small handful of "government operatives" who now stand in their way.

History books warn us: "They are not the first."

Believe it or not, by their own recollection: "the more people they destroy, the more powerful and therefore the more rich they become." These people know absolutely nothing about "remorse." They care for no one but themselves. And, most unfortunately, history books are chock-full of the accounts of such people.

@wpeckham: There's an element of your options there all right. The place I had in mind as I wrote that was California. No doubt they factor in negative carbon emissions for their large forests, grasslands & vineyards. But when these go up in smoke, as they demonstrably have in the last few years, are they factored in as huge carbon emissions the year they burned, and taken out of the 'greenery' figures? They are no longer absorbing carbon - they are gone.

@sundialsvcs: "Lies, damned lies & statistics." Yes, Churchill reacted well under pressure. I think we're on the same page ecologically. Carbon budgeting is all B.S until the planet is wrecked and it's too late. It's likely to happen that way. But you introduced enough red herrings to hijack the thread off on one or many historical tangents.

I don't think statistics matter at this point, there's actual large scale impacts occurring. It would be nice if there were things a garden variety individual can do with confidence which helped. But there's so many redefinitions of what's good, bad, or worse. And these days just saying something aloud opens one up to huge criticism and arguments, and not just discussion arguments but literally profanities being cast immediately at them.

Well, I take exception to that ...

I think this is well known, do you have any reason to think it's not counted?

The carbon in the grass/hay, etc came from atmospheric CO2, so this is carbon neutral anyway? (There are additional emissions from tractors, etc involved in growing and transporting it of course.)

I would like to doubt this. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

The CO2 in coal, oil, and natural gas also came from atmospheric CO2 albeit a long time ago. These substances are the result of incomplete rotting of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Over the eons of time coal is created in freshwater swamps, oil in clays on the sea bottom, and natural gas wherever an impermeable rock layer overlays coal or oil. Nature is an imperfect recycler. So wouldn't the burning of coal, oil and natural gas be carbon neutral?

These examples I am mentioning all have one factor in common. People under pressure to reduce carbon emissions are expected to tell on themselves. If they do, they come under pressure to make more carbon reductions involving really unpopular and economically damaging decisions.

In fact we appear to be reducing carbon initially, but very tough decisions lie in that path that Governments will not make. Things like closing major polluting trade sectors, severe petrol rationing, etc. Who's going to tell folks to go vegan so we can kill all the pigs and cattle, or make other very painful choices? It's impossible in a democracy.

So it appears we are going to be the generation who wreck the planet while carbon budgets increasingly depart from reality. To go by the weather alone, +1.5°C is going to be terrible to live in, and that's only the start of what's already in the pipeline. I'm trying to verify what I see.

As for imported feed, it will be claimed as a carbon reduction in the exporting country. As you say, it's neutral. So to balance the books, it has to be a polluting factor in the importing country.

I knew my carport would be of some use.
https://i.ibb.co/yspVWCL/1.jpg

Pays to be comfy immediate like in the desert instead of waiting on everyone else.
I completely understand when I hear England is getting my West Texas weather.

Nice pic, but it loads like it's at the wrong end of a dialup modem.
How does it cope with desert island weather? Typhoons, hurricanes, etc?

Ah, I don't think this is really an issue, because people are not in fact under that much pressure. See for example, Germany switching to coal; they don't try to justify it by talking about all the German forests. They just burn coal because people demand electricity.

Sure, if you want to look at a multi-million year scope. I think it's pretty obvious that the context here is more short term though.

I get 70 to 80 mph winds sometimes. No problems. Only snows here rarely. Hail Storms sometimes. No problems.

It passed the snow load test.
https://i.ibb.co/yPw12mt/snow-load.jpg

103F presently in the shade here currently. My grass would die if I did not water it this summer. 1st summer this
has happened. Got a major drought going so grass and mesquite fires are more worry some than typhoons which never happen in West Texas.

Edit. Only welding done was on legs to fasten legs to the parking lot. Added an anchor plate.
Everything else was done with electric disc grinder cutter, drill motor, 5/16 contruction bolts to bolt the whole mess together. Self Tapping sheet metal bolts for the sheet metal. Using drill motor.

No welds when putting this together. A ton of drill bit sharpening and drilling though. Hand ratchet and open end backup wrench in 1/2 inch sizes for final assemble. I used 5/16" anchors for the legs in concrete.
Still using drill motor.

Place grows great lawns of rock and cactus. Grass is not native to that area. Perhaps you are growing the wrong lawn?

That's not snow. Even my old picture is not a lot, it was the Spring thaw.

As predicted there are various interpretations about what's good and what's bad.

I'd love an electric car but not then learning manufacturing and disposal were worse. But, overall, a car is not easy waste either.

Attached Thumbnails