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.. 

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

www.liverpool.ac.uk/.../

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: 

Roger B said:

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. 

Roger B said:

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?

Roger B said:

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..

There's no Hype Jon, just science here. 

academic.oup.com/.../5610806

With over 11000 scientists coming to the same conclusion I ask again Where's your empirical proof that all 11000 are wrong?

Have you got in touch and asked them to retract their works based on your findings? 

Were here to discuss the climate emergency and whether a declaration should be made by the iet.

If you want to contribute to solutions by all means let's create sub topics and begin deliberating, but I don't feel like that's why your here?

There are many structural problems that the UK and other countries need to deal with that are probably more complex than the technical ones.

Energy Market: What is a sensible price for energy? How can it be related to the actual cost of production? What is the value of dispatchable energy over intermittent energy?

Housing: Are the current building regulations fit for purpose? Can people be persuaded or encouraged to live in more efficient apartment blocks rather than individual dwellings?

Public Transport: How can the public transport system be integrated with connecting timetables and consistently priced through ticketing?

The World Scientists document is another piece of fairly worthless virtue signalling. Surely 11 000 scientists can come up with some solutions not just demands?

In Cosmos (~1980) Carl Sagan gives a good description of science:

Science has two rules.

First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless.

Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised.

Unfortunately current climate science breaks both of these rules.

Global temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Before that during the Middle Ages Warm Period temperatures may well have been warmer than today. There is much documentary evidence to support this which suggests that the temperature changes must have been at least 1°C. from the average. This is ignored/deleted from current climate science as it is not supported by the current models. Is this a reversed use of rule 2? Surely the models should be revised to match reality?

Are the assumptions of climate science critically examined? Why have none of the past predictions happened? There is still snowfall and skiing. There is still Arctic ice in the summer. Why is the current global temperature always at the bottom end of the predictions?

Why does climate science keep needing to use arguments from authority? 97% of scientists said.. 11 000 scientists (out of how many?) signed this ..

Just to repeat my position: I accept that the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Mankind needs to reduce it’s impact on the planet, minimise the use of finite resources and reduce pollution.

This will be my last post on this thread as the tree structure has now become too obscure for me.

There are many structural problems that the UK and other countries need to deal with that are probably more complex than the technical ones.

Energy Market: What is a sensible price for energy? How can it be related to the actual cost of production? What is the value of dispatchable energy over intermittent energy?

Housing: Are the current building regulations fit for purpose? Can people be persuaded or encouraged to live in more efficient apartment blocks rather than individual dwellings?

Public Transport: How can the public transport system be integrated with connecting timetables and consistently priced through ticketing?

The World Scientists document is another piece of fairly worthless virtue signalling. Surely 11 000 scientists can come up with some solutions not just demands?

In Cosmos (~1980) Carl Sagan gives a good description of science:

Science has two rules.

First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless.

Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised.

Unfortunately current climate science breaks both of these rules.

Global temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age. Before that during the Middle Ages Warm Period temperatures may well have been warmer than today. There is much documentary evidence to support this which suggests that the temperature changes must have been at least 1°C. from the average. This is ignored/deleted from current climate science as it is not supported by the current models. Is this a reversed use of rule 2? Surely the models should be revised to match reality?

Are the assumptions of climate science critically examined? Why have none of the past predictions happened? There is still snowfall and skiing. There is still Arctic ice in the summer. Why is the current global temperature always at the bottom end of the predictions?

Why does climate science keep needing to use arguments from authority? 97% of scientists said.. 11 000 scientists (out of how many?) signed this ..

Just to repeat my position: I accept that the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. Mankind needs to reduce it’s impact on the planet, minimise the use of finite resources and reduce pollution.

This will be my last post on this thread as the tree structure has now become too obscure for me.