Two sides of a very bad coin.

[Suff]

Not going to happen.

But we do have options. Move to Electric, generate electricity from renewable sources, husband the power we have (many power stations waste it, especially at night), pretty much do what most people do with their home, don't waste if you can avoid it.

There is no reason why we can't have a digital age with personal vehicles and freedom to move and travel. But we need to address the fact that burning carbon comes with a cost which is not paid for at the petrol pump or out of the electric socket and we have options which we are not exploring.

That is one of my biggest bug gears about the whole climate change lobby. They're back to basics. In fact we need to make the next technological leap or we're going to run out of Oil and descend into chaos. You can't sell back to basics. You can sell the great leap forward into the next generation of clean electricity and cars which do 500 miles on one charge and charge in 1 hour.... All of which is feasible if we put the effort into it.

Energy efficient light bulbs indeed. If we produced sufficient stored power we would not need highly polluting "energy efficient" bulbs which are neither green nor efficient.

Just another of my positions which neither side will take on board. So I will watch our society descend into chaos, one step at a time. Eyes wide shut.

[cromwell]

It's funny you know how few people take on board "50% of our food comes in from abroad".

And when "abroad" can't produce enough food any more??? What happens to the 50% who can't afford the prices of the only food that can get through?

I've been on about this for ages. Food security, the ability to feed the population, is the one type of security no politician wants to talk about.

When people say that we have plenty of room for more immigrants "Just look at all those green spaces!" etc, I say "Yes, they are called fields, they grow food. It's pretty hard to grow food on tarmac or concrete".

[Suff]

Keeping your eyes open is a good thing to do. After the Russian fires in 2010 I noticed more grain trains moving through France late in the evening. Long held grain stocks being shipped around the EU to fill the gap left by the catastrophic fires...

Lots and lots and lots of trains over a number of months. Normally it would ship out of Russia by ship which carries many train loads in one go.

Stocks only last so long. So far we've never had more than one serious event in any one hemisphere. Over production in wheat is split fairly evenly between Argentina, US/Canada, Russia and Australia. Roughly about 25% each. If any one has a disaster (as we've seen time and time again), the other 3 are able to cover it. When any two stop exporting because of limited output, then stored reserves are on the move. We haven't seen 3 yet. In 2010 it was the US restrictions and a Russian disaster, Australia had just enough rain and Argentina had a bumper harvest.

One day it's going to be 3 disasters with the 4th having trouble....

Then the reserves are going to run out and it's going to be ugly...

[Workingman]

When people say that we have plenty of room for more immigrants "Just look at all those green spaces!" etc, I say "Yes, they are called fields, they grow food. It's pretty hard to grow food on tarmac or concrete".

This why it has gone way past climate change alone. It has move well into Gaia principle territory where climate change still plays a big part, but so do environmental changes, lifestyle changes and population changes (movements and total numbers).

Environmental changes, such as deforestation and fish stock depletion, are down to the direct actions of humanity. Lifestyle changes, especially in the old third world, have seen a move to a meat centred diet and away from a mainly vegetarian diet as people became 'richer' in the $ sense. Then we have the obvious explosion in the global population, where more and more of us are using more and more finite resources.

Hardly anybody in a position of power is talking about these things never mind looking for solutions.

[Suff]

Hmmm, so they have been modelling the effects and the conclusions, if you think about it, are fairly chilling (no pun intended).

The way that article reads, someone might actually think it is a viable option.

To put that in real terms, the 100 warheads are some 1.5 megatonnes, all in all.

One British Vanguard Trident II submarine can carry a total of 40 megatonnes of warheads on it's 16 missiles...

It is not surprising that someone has mentioned that people at the top believe this is feasible. Reading the article, the belief is that those who rely on less intensive agriculture will simply not survive and those who have technology will survive. Leaving those who caused the whole climate problem with an easier ride....

[Workingman]

Headline: Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years.

Then we would get widespread famine and disease and "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years.

Way to go!

I cannot believe that any sane person could possibly see even a local nuclear conflict as any sort of solution. Are these nutters seriously considering limited nuclear wars every few years as a 'solution' to climate change?

That is scarier than the actuality of climate change itself.

[Suff]

Are these nutters seriously considering limited nuclear wars every few years as a 'solution' to climate change?

No I'm pretty sure they're thinking of it as a on time fix. After all, if you get rid of a few billion "undesirables" who don't really buy all that many goods, plus dump a chunk of heat out of the planet for, say, a decade, allowing the Arctic ice a solid block of time to regenerate; then the aftermath of the whole thing could be stronger carbon controls as part of the "medicine" to survive the nuclear induced winter.

These people think that way. They have absolutely no idea what will happen when they try and ride roughshod over the people. People who have comfortable, lazy, lives, can be easily overridden. People who are hungry, rationed, uncomfortable and no longer privileged tend to turn into rabid mobs who tear everything down around them. Illogically making their lives ten times worse, but don't get me started on the logic of the masses. Western Spring anyone?

You know the military mind as well as I do. 15,000 years of descent into chaos with the destruction of everything we have known or built? Or two decades of chaos with controls in place and a more "ordered" society out the other end with great capacity for growth.

What would they choose?

I said some stuff didn't make sense. Remember the American Ambassador to Saddam "I suppose if you take over Kuwait most of the rest of the world will treat it as a local issue". "Ooops perhaps I misread the situation". Although Maggie did have to shove a broom up Bushes backside to give him some backbone on the isue. I wonder who is advising that North Korean idiot that if he really does use Nukes it will show that he's a strong leader who people can't 'k with and how the rest of the world will cower at his great prowess...

About two decades ago I was reading that the fall of the USSR had actually made the world a significantly less stable and safe place. Some time it's going to come home to roost.

[Workingman]

The nuclear holocaust and the nuclear winter will not kill billions in their first phase, they will kill a few hundreds of millions. The rest die a very painful death from radiation poisoning and, eventually, famine. The rich, wealthy, elite and privileged are not immune from the aftermath, they are, actually, the most exposed.

It will be the bushmen, nomads and hill farmers who will profit. They will be able to survive and thrive without modern technology - smartphones, laptops, social media, the Internet, cars, trains and planes. Those who can live off their wits and their ancient accumulated knowledge of their environments are the ones who will win out.

"And the meek shall inherit the Earth" says a certain book. How right it is.

[Suff]

Well, yes, in the global war scenario.

However in a limited war in Asia or the Indian Subcontinent, that's a different issue isn't it.. Or at least that is what someone will tell themselves....

[Suff]

Seems someone is doing a lot of thinking about how a limited nuclear conflict can evolve. It's cached, the original document is now access denied.

It is no wonder that someone else is taking that work and working out what it might mean in fighting Climate Change.