This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Climate Emergency Declaration

Are we, as the IET, declaring a climate emergency? 

It's really that simple a topic, should we be adding our professional voice to the growing number of countries and organisations declaring such an event, to bring better awareness of the threat of the climate crisis and to encourage more discussion in addressing it! 

  • More people need more food, meat, houses, hot water, cars all of which need fuel. 

    The planet has many different types of fuels but nearly all concentrated fuels are hydrocarbons and emit CO2.

    The planets answer is to defrost the tundra and icecaps so more vegetation can absorb the CO2

    Gods very sensible solution and one we must live with.. 

  • This is my understanding too.

    The recent world population boom is most probably due to global warming and human CO2 both of which have increased in the last 300 years since the little ice age. 

    The planet and humans thrive in our current climate and set to increase further.

    As we know from ice core and sediment samples the past has been much warmer than today with CO2 in the thousands of parts per million. The current 423PPM is great for us. Also, its known that we are coming to the end of our current interglacial period,  when things start to get cold humans will struggle, crops will fail and the world population will shrink.

    The IPCC models fail to predict anything useful with there model runs failing to match observations. Indeed they can't even tell what the temperature will be in 10 days time.

  • This has already been debunked. 

    While there has been an increase in the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plantlife, it's offset by the increase in global temperatures which are decimating the very same plants. 

    New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’ | Climate science scepticism and denial | The Guardian

    "A new study by scientists at Stanford University, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested whether hotter temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels that we’ll see post-2050 will benefit the kinds of plants that live in California grasslands. They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had a negative effect."


  • The Grauniad is a left wing green path follower. You'll get nothing sensible from them other than the usual scaremongering.

  • Did you read the actual 2016 study and see how limited it was?

    Meanwhile in the real world cereal production is increasing steadily in spite of increasing temperatures and CO2 levels:

  • Here's straight from nasa.

    " the warming properties of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are well-established and scientifically uncontroversial.

    Available CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth outside of a greenhouse.

    Proper moisture, nutrients, temperature, sunlight and controlling pests are.

    How Rising CO2 Affects Nutrition:

    Though rising CO2 stimulates plant growth and carbohydrate production, it reduces the nutritional value (protein and minerals) of most food crops. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health.


    As CO2 increases, plants need less protein for photosynthesis, resulting in an overall decline in protein concentration in plant tissues. This trend for declining protein levels is evident for wheat flour derived from multiple wheat varieties when grown under laboratory conditions simulating the observed increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1900. When grown at the CO2 levels projected for 2100 (540–958 ppm), major food crops, such as barley, wheat, rice, and potato, exhibit 6% to 15% lower protein concentrations relative to ambient levels (315–400 ppm). In contrast, protein content is not anticipated to decline significantly for corn or sorghum.

    While protein is an essential aspect of human dietary needs, the projected human health impacts of a diet including plants with reduced protein concentration from increasing CO2 are not well understood and may not be of considerable threat in the United States, where dietary protein deficiencies are uncommon.


    The ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 is also very likely to deplete other elements essential to human health (such as calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc) by 5% to 10% in most plants. The projected decline in mineral concentrations in crops has been attributed to at least two distinct effects of elevated CO2 on plant biology. First, rising CO2 increases carbohydrate accumulation in plant tissues, which can, in turn, dilute the content of other nutrients, including minerals. Second, high CO2 concentrations reduce plant demands for water, resulting in fewer nutrients being drawn into plant roots.

    The ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations reduces the amount of essential minerals per calorie in most crops, thus reducing nutrient density. Such a reduction in crop quality may aggravate existing nutritional deficiencies, particularly for populations with pre-existing health conditions.

    Carbohydrate-to-Protein Ratio:

    Elevated CO2 tends to increase the concentrations of carbohydrates (starch and sugars) and reduce the concentrations of protein. The overall effect is a significant increase in the ratio of carbohydrates to protein in plants exposed to increasing CO2. There is growing evidence that a dietary increase in this ratio can adversely affect human metabolism and body composition.

    Carbon speeds crop growth but often for little gain:

    "In “real world” conditions, any gains from carbon fertilisation are lost − because of the stress caused to crops by the 2°C temperature rise that the gas causes in the atmosphere. Even worse, the fact that crops grow faster does not mean that their nutritional value is greater – many showed lower mineral nutrients and protein content.

    Some crops do get a boost from more carbon in the atmosphere because it makes photosynthesis more efficient, but this is only if nutrients and water are available at optimum levels. This group includes soybean, cassava and rice, all vital in feeding some of the hungriest people in the world.

    The anticipated 2°C rise in temperature, caused primarily by this increase in CO2, could halve yields of some of our major crops, wiping out any gain from CO2.

    “Lots of people have presumed that rising CO2 is largely a good thing for crops, assuming more CO2 will make the world’s forests greener and increase crop yields,” Ainsworth said.

    “The more recent studies challenge that assumption a bit. We’re finding that when you have other stresses, you don’t always get a benefit of elevated CO2. The last 15 years have taught us to account more for the complex interactions from other factors like drought, temperature, nutrients and pests.”

    The poor quality of some of the grain, with less mineral and protein content, is also a blow to add to the crop growth doubts. The potential increased yield is also much smaller under conditions where there is low nitrogen fertiliser, typical of the world’s poorest countries."

    Ainsworth and Long 2020 - 30 years of free‐air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE): What have we learned about future crop productivity and its potential for adaptation?

    86% of land ecosystems globally are becoming progressively less efficient at absorbing the increasing levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Wang et al 2020 - Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis

    Soils or plants will absorb more CO2 as carbon levels rise—but not both

    "When elevated carbon dioxide levels drive increased plant growth, it takes a surprisingly steep toll on another big carbon sink: the soil.

    Plants effectively mine the soil for nutrients they need to keep up with carbon-fueled growth. Extracting the extra nutrients requires revving up microbial activity, which then releases CO2 into the atmosphere that might otherwise remain locked in soil.

    The research suggests grasslands may absorb unexpectedly large amounts of carbon in the coming decades. Under a scenario where atmospheric CO2 doubles pre-industrial levels the researchers estimate carbon uptake in grassland soils will increase 8 percent, while carbon uptake by forest soils will remain roughly flat. That's in spite of CO2 enrichment giving a greater boost to biomass in forests (23 percent) than in grasslands (9 percent), partly because trees allocate belowground a relatively small portion of the carbon they absorb."

    Terrer et al 2021 - A trade-off between plant and soil carbon storage under elevated CO2


  • It's not about the guardian. It literally references a scientific study. That's your source. 

  • Not alot of talk about the oceans which far outweighs the land when it comes to co2 absorption and immision.

    We do know the planet is greening.

  • Not alot of talk about the oceans which far outweighs the land when it comes to co2 absorption and immision.

    We do know the planet is greening.

  • Ok let's talk ocean. 

    "Coastal flooding will increase significantly over the next 30 years because of sea level rise, according to a new report by an interagency sea level rise task force that includes NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies. Titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, the Feb. 15 report concludes that sea level along U.S. coastlines will rise between 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) on average above today’s levels by 2050.

    The report – an update to a 2017 report – forecasts sea level to the year 2150 and, for the first time, offers near-term projections for the next 30 years. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels use these reports to inform their plans on anticipating and coping with the effects of sea level rise.

    “This report supports previous studies and confirms what we have long known: Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world. Science is indisputable and urgent action is required to mitigate a climate crisis that is well underway,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “NASA is steadfast in our commitment to protecting our home planet by expanding our monitoring capabilities and continuing to ensure our climate data is not only accessible but understandable.”

    Sea Level to Rise up to a Foot by 2050, Interagency Report Finds – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (

    The rise in sea level is currently 101.2mm since 1993

    Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (

    "The ocean absorbs around 30% of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere as a result of human activities. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid, decreasing the ocean’s pH. This is called ocean acidification. The acidity of the ocean has increased by 26% since the beginning of the industrial era.

    Ocean acidification is also changing other aspects of seawater carbonate chemistry. The saturation of calcium carbonate minerals, such as calcite and aragonite, is lowered, reducing the availability of these minerals. Organisms using calcium carbonates as the main building blocks of their shells and skeletal structures, such as mussels, crustaceans and corals, are struggling or unable to form and maintain the shells and carapaces they need.

    Ocean acidification has been shown to affect organisms and ecosystems, impacting ecosystem services such as food security, by endangering fisheries and aquaculture. It also impacts coastal protection (for example by weakening coral reefs shielding the coastline), transportation and tourism. The ocean’s capacity to store carbon dioxide and help regulate the climate will be affected, as the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 decreases as ocean acidification increases. Regular observations and measurements of ocean acidification in open oceans and coastal areas are necessary to improve our understanding of the effects, enable modelling and predictions and help inform mitigation and adaptation strategies."

    Ocean acidification (

  •  I am amused to see that you are no longer quoting Ainsworth and Long 2020.


    As stated therein from 250 observations around the world under non stress conditions 200ppm increase in CO2 caused an average 18% increase in yield.

    If there are other limits on growth, temperature, water, nutrients etc then higher CO2 levels may not make an improvement and may result in other problems.

    If you look at the trajectory the world is supposed to be on, higher temperatures, higher rainfall and more CO2 will all be beneficial to crop growth.


    Sea level is another interesting series of data sets. Here is one from NOAA:


    This shows very little acceleration in the rate of rise and has a rise of a little over 80mm since 1993. The NASA source you quote has a rise of 101mm since 1993.

    If we look at the longer term view from the NASA source the rate of rise varies considerably and the current rate is similar to the rate between 1935 and 1950. Is the quote “Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world” really valid.


    All in all a problem not an emergency.

    So what do we do? The IET declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ is pointless. The problem needs well thought out technical solutions.

    Where will we get the most benefits? What are the resources required?

    Should we focus on transport electrification? Is electric public transport, trams, trains and trolley buses better than personal EVs (for a given value of better)? How do you deal with agricultural and construction transport where there is no infrastructure?

    Is replacing the inefficient housing stock more sensible than retrofitting insulation and heat pump systems? There is an interesting selection of very energy efficient ‘flat pack’ houses available.  

    Is it better to invest in wind and PV together with large storage systems or in new nuclear generation with load following capabilities?

    What do you propose should be done?

  • Here's some factual stuff on CO2

    Facts Archive - CO2 Coalition

  • The oceans are Alkaline not Acidic. Anyway they're unlikely be acidic because most the ocean base is mostly Limestone.

    Regarding Sea level rise

    Please read this. (and comment)

    Data Disproves BBC's Claim of ‘Sea Level Rise Speeding Up' - ClimateRealism


  • Nice straight line in the graph. Again no drama there.

    I do wonder how they measured tide height in victorian times. But then the victorians new a thing or two about engineering, our Norfolk coast they installed groyne systems to prevent the promenades from falling into the sea. Nowadays due to the green madness the groynes are left to ruin. No maintenance. With the increase of 30cm in sea level since Victoria times  you would have thought that the Environment Agency would build then higher and repair the missing planks between the uprights,but no.

  • Hey Roger sorry for the delay. 

    In terms of the latter section of your previous post: 

    So what do we do? The IET declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ is pointless. The problem needs well thought out technical solutions.

    The point here is to add a big name to the ever growing list of places announcing it. 

    I don't disagree it needs thought out technical solutions. 

    Where will we get the most benefits? What are the resources required?

    That's exactly why we're here at the IET isn't it. Are we not the ones working in those industries able to answer the technical challenges behind this?

    Should we focus on transport electrification? Is electric public transport, trams, trains and trolley buses better than personal EVs (for a given value of better)? How do you deal with agricultural and construction transport where there is no infrastructure

    Personally speaking, I'm a big supporter of transport electrification, that's why I began posting on EVii on social media.

    One of the biggest reasons I'm seeing for the lack of take up in this area from personal experience looking into the advertising side of this is the massive amount of disinformation surrounding the tech. 

    You have so many people posting memes about the cars being charged from coal so it's not green - you point out that despite it being charged from coal (in some cases) the overall emissions are still less than a comparable ICE vehicle (see the EVii posts for details on the specifics why), they'll just respond with a laughing face and move onto the next myth, like the grid will fall over, they'll explode on your driveway etc. etc. 

    People are actually under the assumption that these myths are real, and it only takes a short conversation or a link to better materials to show them they're being led by myth, not science. 

    We are the people who should be correcting this. What's the point of learning everything we do just to allow everyone else to continue to believe propaganda posts about EV being the root of all evil etc. 

    In terms of public transport, that's a difficult one because of the current ownership structure, take my local area as an example. 

    The council is part funding upgrades to OLD buses (like 2003 ish) to retrofit them with EURO6 compliant diesel engines, there's zero hybridisation going on and zero roadmap to upgrade the fleet to hybrid/ hydrogen or fully electric, this is despite those vehicles already existing with the likes of volvo producing them. 

    We're actually paying private companies to upgrade their own fleets - which is ludicrous. 

    Will someone pay me to upgrade my vehicle? No! 

    Fundamentally there's lots we can look at, it's a case of splitting it down into individual topics and working on them from there I'd suggest. As this thread can't capture everything (though it could signpost).

  • There's a fundamental problem with the EA - I think that's well known now considering the issues they're having with Walleys Quarry in Newcastle Under Lyme which continues to make national news. 

  • Climate realism? Not really the most reputable source. 

    You can't argue that climate change doesn't exist considering the amount of nations and groups that have already declared such an emergency - if the collective consensus is that it's happening, how is Jon Steward suddenly seeing something that the whole of the scientific community has missed? 

    Look at the summer we had this year. And the expectation is that's going to get worse year on year - that's not normal. 

  • Lol.

    You need a broader read Aaron. Don't believe the hype!

    Of course, the climate is changing. So does the weather. There is a difference between the two.

    The hot summer was lovely.. usually a colder winter follows.. so wrap up warm and don't use any energy..