Climate change: World's largest scientific report 'code red for humanity'

[EnterpriseSovereign]

As wildfires blaze across southern Europe and parts of the US, just weeks after dramatic flooding in China and northern Europe left dozens dead, the world's largest ever report into climate change has set the stark reality of the state of the planet.

The assessment from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paints a bleak picture of the "unequivocal" impact human activity was having on the planet.

Without immediate, rapid and large-scale cuts to greenhouse gas pollution, limiting warming to 1.5C - the target set by countries in the Paris climate treaty - will be beyond reach, scientists say.

The report's key points:

Human-caused climate change has pushed up global temperatures by 1.1C and is driving weather and climate extremes in every region across the world.

There are already more frequent and intense heatwaves and heavy rainstorms in many places, including northern Europe, as well as droughts and cyclones.

Humans are also very likely the main driver in glacier melt, declines in Arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

Sea level rises are speeding up, with the oceans rising by 3.7mm (0.15 inches) a year in recent years, and are set to continue to rise this century whether emissions remain high or fall dramatically.

Changes to oceans, sea levels and melting permafrost and glaciers are irreversible for decades, centuries or even millennia as a result of past and future warming.

Cities are at particular risk as the climate warms, experiencing hotter temperatures in heatwaves and flash flooding from heavy rain.

Unlikely events such ice sheet collapses, abrupt changes to ocean circulation – which drives weather patterns – and much higher warming cannot be ruled out.

The paper drew on more than 14,000 scientific papers and has found it is “unequivocal” that human activity is warming the world.

Rapid and widespread changes to the land, atmosphere and oceans have occurred – from temperature increases to sea level rises – that are unprecedented for many centuries or even many thousands of years.

One of the report’s lead authors, Dr Tamsin Edwards from King’s College London, said: “Unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the 1.5C target will be beyond reach.”

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres described the report as a “code red for humanity”.

Speaking at an IPCC press conference on Monday, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, warned “it is time to get serious” and that “no-one is safe” during the climate crisis.

There are a lot of politics that will make it difficult for Boris Johnson to tackle the climate crisis, including worries that the poorest people will bear the brunt of the cost, Anushka Asthana says

The report released on Monday is the first part of the sixth global assessment of climate science to be undertaken since the IPCC was formed in 1988.

It looks at the physical science of climate change, with further parts of the review covering impacts and adapting to climate change, and solutions to the crisis, will be published in 2022.

The report comes as global temperatures have climbed to 1.2C above pre-industrial levels and increasingly extreme weather – from record heatwaves and wildfires to downpours and devastating flooding – hits countries around the world.

Despite the growing spectre of climate change, governments are not taking enough action to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions from human activity such as burning fossil fuels for heating, transport and power supplies to curb rising temperatures. UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa has warned that many countries have not brought forward new action plans for cutting their emissions – a key part of what they need to do before the Cop26 climate summit – and those that have are not doing enough.

Homes contribute around 15% of the UK’s carbon emissions and cleaning up fossil fuel heating systems, mostly gas boilers, is needed to meet legal targets to cut climate pollution to zero overall.

The Climate Change Committee has advised that sales of gas boilers for homes should largely be phased out by 2033 and replaced by air source heat pumps, or be appliances that can be converted to a clean fuel supply, such as hydrogen instead of natural gas.

Responding to the report, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: "We know what must be done... consign coal to history and shift to clean energy sources, protect nature and provide climate finance for countries on the frontline".

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng insisted the UK's targets were "robust".

"I think the job we have is to try and bring other people across the world to the net zero agenda and I think that's beginning to happen," he told ITV News.
"We need a much stronger response from the international community. I think our targets, if we can stick to them, can really help deliver, help the planet, and avoid the catastrophe that's described."

Labour leader Keir Starmer the report was "the starkest reminder yet that the climate crisis is here right now and is the biggest long term threat we face".

“The biggest threat we now face is not climate denial but climate delay. Those who, like our Prime Minister, acknowledge there is a problem, but simply don't have the scale of ambition required to match the moment. Our communities and planet can no longer afford the inaction of this government, who are failing to treat the crisis with the seriousness it deserves."

The IPCC reports are an assessment of all the available science on climate change.

The report goes well beyond the previous IPCC assessment of 2013 when evidence of human-driven climate change was inconclusive. The global surface temperatures have increased by around 0.2 in the eight years since the last report.

This latest study involved 234 authors from around the world, who have received tens of thousands of comments on earlier drafts from scientists and governments.

Most importantly, the 41-page summary of the report has been subject to a line-by-line approval process involving scientists and representatives of the 195 governments before it is published – which has taken place online over the last two weeks.

That means governments have signed off on the findings – and pressure will be on them to take more action at global climate talks known as Cop26 which are being held in Glasgow in November.

A special report from the IPCC in 2018 warned that overshooting the 1.5C limit would mean more extreme weather, greater sea-level rises, and damage to crops, wildlife and health.

But the report, which assesses the potential impact of a range of five future scenarios from very low emissions to very high pollution, says temperature rises have a good chance of remaining below 1.5C in the long term if carbon emissions are cut to net zero by 2050.

Efforts to take more carbon dioxide out of the air than is put into the atmosphere, along with deep cuts to other greenhouse gases would also reduce the likelihood of temperatures rising above the threshold.

Cutting methane – produced by oil and gas drilling and agriculture, particularly livestock farming – could help curb rising temperatures, as well as improving air quality, the report said.

Over the weekend, Cop26 President Alok Sharma laid bear the enormous threat failing to curb emissions poses humanity.
In an interview with the Guardian, he warned world was getting “dangerously close” to running out of time to cut greenhouse gas, adding: “I don’t think we’re out of time but I think we’re getting dangerously close to when we might be out of time.”

Mr Sharma said: “Every fraction of a degree rise makes a difference and that’s why countries have to act now.”

Climate change: World's largest scientific report 'code red for humanity'.

[Broomstick]

But the report, which assesses the potential impact of a range of five future scenarios from very low emissions to very high pollution, says temperature rises have a good chance of remaining below 1.5C in the long term if carbon emissions are cut to net zero by 2050.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

I do not see any way that the world is collectively going to get its act together sufficiently to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by that date.

At this point I'm trying to figure out what's going to happen where I'm currently living in the next 10-20 years, and what might be happening in potential relocation spots because I don't believe anything is really going to change until the wealthy and powerful are inconvenienced or under threat.

[Raw Shark]

Not. Going. To. Happen.

I do not see any way that the world is collectively going to get its act together sufficiently to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by that date.

"Muh F350 has air conditioning! Fuck you and your little-dick Prius, I'mma get one of those muffler attachments that blows black smoke at you as soon as the coal mine reopens."

[Solauren]

I don't believe anything is really going to change until the wealthy and powerful are inconvenienced or under threat.

Edit: until the wealthy and powerful figure out a way to make even more money off fixing it.

[loomer]

In 2019, I was at a large international conference on the prospect of the coming doom. These were some of our conclusions. We will not limit warming to under 1.5 - all we can do is limit it to 1.5 - 2C, but that will be the difference between the possibility of hard lives and no lives at all. While the time to begin developing practical skills and community bonds never actually stopped, now is the time to redouble efforts. Individual survival is a fool's game in the face of long crises.

The most practical response any individual can have to this report is to go out in their community, make friends, establish mutual support networks, and then use those both to buffer against what's coming and to try and exert political and economic pressure through mass actions. Join lodges, book clubs, churches, anarchist mutual aid networks, and so on - the most important element is community. Dedicated prepper circles are actually one of the last places you want to go, because those people are often maniacs (see also militia compounds, fundamentalist churches, anarchist communes (as opposed to anarchist networks - the communes often attract the more unreliable members of our community), and almost any communist party at the moment). Once you have sufficient numbers, engage in direct action against any and all new developments that threaten you - and be prepared for the consequences. (And don't forget: the media, political, and court systems may be corrupt, but they are still weapons. Use them. I was involved in a major struggle a few years ago where it was a few geeks sitting in back who were able to turn the mass of bodies putting themselves on the line into a victory by creating both horrific optics and the escape route for the government involved by using the prospect of media coverage, the specific office of a politician, a single stock license, and the use of an anti-corruption body. Without those geeks, it would have turned into a brutally violent rout, as the entire state's riot squads had been concentrated to come smash our skulls in and force us into submission.)

The other practical responses are to shift to a plant based diet (not because veganism will save the world, but because it'll be easier to adapt now with the luxury of choice than later without it. If you have the luxury, focus on locally grown fruits and vegetables and small-scale backyard farmed/wild caught meats - someone raising a few goats on marginal land to sell their meat and cheese is not a carbon issue; buying a bag of almonds from six states over is) and to develop practical skills that don't rely on extensive energy infrastructure - carpentry, brewing, basic mechanical repair, medicine, masonry, mediation and conflict resolution, blacksmithing, welding. Personally, I make cheeses, smoked goods, and wine, know how to mediate conflicts and draft law codes for unprecedented times (this, in fact, is my real specialty - the intersection of my legal history work and my legal philosophy work) and how to grow food and medicine (and know what to do with them). These skills are only worth their salt if the community knows you have them, so get out there and give the results to your network and encourage them to do the same.

On the individual level, the most important skills to cultivate - beyond a few practical crafts - are resilience, flexibility, generosity, and an easy going nature. Things will often be hard (even if we manage to limit the damage to what's already been done - things will be hard. There will be floods, fires, and storms. There will be famines, plagues, and wars.) and it will be necessary to be able to pick not just yourself up, but your neighbours and strangers and give them hospitality with whatever you have left.

Your homes may be destroyed and communities displaced, but you'll have much better odds if you have both friends, these attitudes, and a useful skill for anywhere you may wind up. This is how we will survive.

At that conference, an Elder who'd come to seek support for saving her land changed my view on things in a way. I was of the view that with what's coming, all we could do was lay down and die - and perhaps, that morally, we should. 'If we all die, all our relatives [non-human] and Country will have to go on without us - and we will be missed deeply by them. And if we do all die, then we should at least go away gently, saying goodbye and we're sorry.' When things are bleak, I remember that. We don't get to surrender even if it looks like the governments will fail to take action. Even if all we can do is fade out gently, then that is our moral responsibility.

[His Divine Shadow]

Don't see any changes happening really. The city people won't give up their hyperconsumption and global traveling culture and the rural folks can't / won't live withour their cars.

Personally we need to move to 3-4 day work weeks and mandate forced idleness the rest of the days, like stores are shut on sundays or only open reduced hours. But it'd be like that friday - sunday. that should make economic activity drop, which is the problem, the economy, the buying and the transporting, which we mainly do in order to get to work and back. Work less days, travel less, it's the best way to reduce economic activity and give people more free time and reduce traveling.

Oh well whatever not gonna happen, number must go up, must please our billionaire overlods.

[wautd]

Depressing and not surprising news to be sure. The world is literally on fire due to killer heat waves and unstoppable forest fires in some parts of the world, while other parts are literally drowning in killer rain floods.

Meanwhile, I see plenty people still in denial, or even an army of trolls laughing everything away on social media whenever a global warming related article is posted (in this day and age, people seem to reject modern science more than ever. It's the same with conspiracy nuttery, anti-vaxxers, increased religious fundamentalism,...)

This problem needs to be solved on a global scale, with more than symbolic gestures. Actual investments and some change of life. But that requires politicians who are brave enough to take their responsibility. That includes doing unpopular things in the short term in order to prevent worse things on the long term.

But hey, on the bright side, we have Bolsonaro promise to limit the destruction of the rainforest by 2030

[Broomstick]

The most practical response any individual can have to this report is to go out in their community, make friends, establish mutual support networks, and then use those both to buffer against what's coming and to try and exert political and economic pressure through mass actions.

Or find a different community, if they one you physically live in refuses to acknowledge the reality of what's coming. I have older friends still talking about buying beachfront property in Florida and leaving it to their kids - I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 1/3 of the current land area of the state will be underwater by 2100 - only 80 years away. Sure, my generation isn't expected to be there, but their kids and grandkids will likely see that date. And the drinking water will be fouled before the coasts go under.

That's why I said I'm looking at the next 10-20 years here - that's my plan for earning a living until retirement. But after that I've got a different community to go to, when I'm not anchored by my current job. A community that is aware of what's coming, and that has land further north near a sufficiently large body of water to moderate the climate. Be willing to relocate. You may have to anyway, but even if it's not forced relocating could put you into a much better situation. Heck, tens of millions of other people will be relocating, too. Those unwilling to move.... well, to put it bluntly they may not survive. Start planning now so it can be a voluntary move and not a desperate flight that leaves you a destitute refugee.

The other practical responses are to shift to a plant based diet (not because veganism will save the world, but because it'll be easier to adapt now with the luxury of choice than later without it. If you have the luxury, focus on locally grown fruits and vegetables and small-scale backyard farmed/wild caught meats - someone raising a few goats on marginal land to sell their meat and cheese is not a carbon issue; buying a bag of almonds from six states over is)

Flexibility in diet is always a good thing - we are, after all, omnivores. Even now, when I do not have access to land, I have a balcony garden providing lettuce, beans, herbs and greens. Although keeping everything alive and growing has been challenging this summer with our weather extremes - but hey, it's practice because that's only going to get worse. The store I work in features locally grown food and I make an effort to purchase it when seasonally available. (You have to look at how they define "local", though). I don't buy almonds anymore, though, and try to avoid them - 80% of the world's almonds come from California, most of that the Central Valley, where water is running out despite huge irrigation projects, worker exploitation goes back centuries, and parts of the landscape are on fire even as I type. Commercially produced almonds are not sustainable. So even "plant-based" has pitfalls - yet another reason to focus on local.

I do wonder about operations like Gotham Greens and other urban farming. Certainly the water use is VASTLY more efficient, and the plants are protected from climate extremes and various pests. It certainly allows growing food locally that might not otherwise be possible. It provides jobs in urban areas, which is where most of the people are. Less land area is required to produce the food. But what about energy costs? Some utilize natural sunlight when possible and artificial lights are supplemental. Some pipe industrially-produced CO2 directly to the plants.

Hydroponics can be done on the cheap with recycled material supplies - I know, because I've done that not once but twice in my lifetime, including one set up that did NOT require electrical power to run. Which is adequate for a household but I don't think these scale up to commercial production efficiency. Still, if you have the space (in truth, you don't need a lot) you might experiment with this, or aquaponics where you integrate fish into a mini-ecosystem in your backyard. I do recommend some automation, like pumps and timers. Specialty lights to promote growth can get pricey, which is why I've always tried to utilize natural sunlight as much as possible. (I did discover that at my latitude we don't get sufficient daylight from November to February to promote growth - those months I supplemented with artificial lights a few hours a day).

But articles such like those I've linked to tend to show the results and gloss over or entirely omit the less wonderful parts of hydroponic/greenhouse farming. There are downsides and problems.

Anyhow, eat local. Even if you can't convert entirely to a localvore take steps in that direction. Buy local even if it's slightly more money if you can afford that (some people are too poor to have choices - I've been there, glad I'm doing better financially these days). Learn to eat less meat. Be open to trying game meat IF that is appropriate for your area (in the US Midwest deer can approach plague levels - the ecosystem would likely benefit if a few more of them were eaten). Support preservation of habitat and natural areas.

..and to develop practical skills that don't rely on extensive energy infrastructure - carpentry, brewing, basic mechanical repair, medicine, masonry, mediation and conflict resolution, blacksmithing, welding. Personally, I make cheeses, smoked goods, and wine, know how to mediate conflicts and draft law codes for unprecedented times (this, in fact, is my real specialty - the intersection of my legal history work and my legal philosophy work) and how to grow food and medicine (and know what to do with them). These skills are only worth their salt if the community knows you have them, so get out there and give the results to your network and encourage them to do the same.

When people list off useful skills like that those they don't include can be as interesting as those they do. Myself, I can bring cloth and paper production to the table (by which I mean I can take a raw fleece off a sheep, clean it, spin it, dye it, weave it, and finish it, also felt, also other fiber production, also paper from pulp to finished product from a variety of sources), I can sew - and my main sewing machine is a 19th Century muscle powered machine that requires no electricity. Likewise I have both a working antique spinning wheel and hand spindles for spinning. I can make fishnets as well, and cordage. I have built several weaving looms (yeah, this is sort of my thing). Enough of the fiber arts! I can also repair shoes and did so for several years as my living - could probably make them as well if I had to do so. I have experience with wood working, leatherworking, and building/repairing buildings. I can bake bread, and not only can I bake to a recipe I have sufficient knowledge of the process so that I can modify recipes and make substitutions of ingredients and still get an edible (even tasty!) result. I know how to cook several types of game meat. I know how to do a lot of cooking from scratch by which I mean not only buying separate ingredients at the store but preparing food from raw materials. I know how to clean/filet fish and butcher an animal. I know how to make stained glass and am currently trying my hand at recycling bottles and jars into useful/beautiful objects instead of just chucking them into landfills.

Oh yeah, about garbage - try to reduce it. Bring less material stuff into your home. Recycle what you can. If you can, compost kitchen scraps (I can't in my current apartment, more's the pity, but I used to do that a lot).

No, you don't want to get involved with the crazy end of the preppers. It would probably be better to get involved with re-enactors, arts and crafts people, and the like. Find out how people did things before all the greenhouse-gas producing industrialization. Opt for more muscle powered stuff and less high tech stuff. Don't buy a treadmill, walk outside.

I'm not going to try to sell you on the notion that you taking these small steps are going to save the planet. They won't. Oh, if ten million or a half a billion all did the same it might have an impact, but that's not the main thrust here. What it will do is make YOU more flexible and healthy, which will improve the odds the remainder of your life will be a good one, or at least a tolerable one, and you can teach your children (or your chosen community's children, if you have none yourself) how to have a good life even under adverse conditions. Basically, it's being "selfish" in a manner that has the least impact on the planet by trying to optimize your personal survival in a way that does NOT contribute to the problems at hand.

On the individual level, the most important skills to cultivate - beyond a few practical crafts - are resilience, flexibility, generosity, and an easy going nature. Things will often be hard (even if we manage to limit the damage to what's already been done - things will be hard. There will be floods, fires, and storms. There will be famines, plagues, and wars.) and it will be necessary to be able to pick not just yourself up, but your neighbours and strangers and give them hospitality with whatever you have left.

Your homes may be destroyed and communities displaced, but you'll have much better odds if you have both friends, these attitudes, and a useful skill for anywhere you may wind up. This is how we will survive.

^ This.

We don't get to surrender even if it looks like the governments will fail to take action. Even if all we can do is fade out gently, then that is our moral responsibility.

Yes.

We can't look to the governments and the wealthy to save us - they've demonstrated they won't. Morally, as individuals we need to consider our choices and as much as we can make them to have the least negative impacts on the planet. As local communities, we need to support each other.

We aren't going back to the pre-industrial world - and I wouldn't want to do so. Not all changes are bad - I wouldn't want to give up modern sanitation or the germ theory, for example. I do hope that, as a species, we get better at understanding how systems interconnect, knock-on effects, and learn to make better long-term choices. I don't know if we will actually do that, but I'm a cock-eyed optimist by nature, it's at least possible.

[Tribble]

What do you think are the odds of severe climate change ultimately leading to a WMD exchange at some point as well?

Would a severe enough climate crisis prompt conflicts that lead to WMD use, even if only out of desperation / spite?

Edit: also, if WMDs end up being widely used how would that impact climate change?

[Broomstick]

Given that Syria's civil war was triggered in part by drought aggravated by climate change, and that chemical weapons have been used in that war, one could argue that it has already happened.

The impact on climate change would depend on the weapon(s) used.

[Solauren]

The sad thing is, if enough effort was put into deploying Carbon capture technologies, we could slow, if not reverse (depending on how widescale it was implemented) Climate Change.

Problem is, there is no profit in it.

[loomer]

What do you think are the odds of severe climate change ultimately leading to a WMD exchange at some point as well?

Would a severe enough climate crisis prompt conflicts that lead to WMD use, even if only out of desperation / spite?

Edit: also, if WMDs end up being widely used how would that impact climate change?

Probably, yes, but it's a wild card we can't meaningfully predict in terms of scale, location, or severity. As to whether they'd impact climate change? Well, they might in one of three ways (hell, maybe more) depending on just how widely they get used.
1. Good ol' Nuclear Winter will solve that problem with a worse problem.
2. If you deforest huge areas, you will cause further degradation to every cycle reliant on greenery, which is most of them.
3. If you kill enough people quickly enough with plagues, nerve toxins, or bombs, they will both produce less carbon and leave behind a whole host of industrial processes that needed to be monitored and that will collapse with potentially devastating results.

Of course, the bigger danger is simply that modern industrial warfare is a huge direct emitter - you'll pump out a whole damn lot of extra greenhouse gases to run a tank or a jet than a car. Every battle fought is a harsher cut needed everywhere else.

The sad thing is, if enough effort was put into deploying Carbon capture technologies, we could slow, if not reverse (depending on how widescale it was implemented) Climate Change.

Problem is, there is no profit in it.

Also the fact that freestanding (i.e. not linked to energy production) carbon capture technologies on the scale we need are at best unreliable and at worst ineffective. But it's not an either/or issue: we need both. We need to both massively downscale our reliance on the effectively free energy we built our civilizations on and find effective means of carbon capture that can be done without a large carbon-reliant base. A prayer to the machinegod in isolation won't work. Massive regreening was a fix for a long time but unfortunately we've passed the threshold where forests can no longer reliably absorb carbon from the atmosphere and retain it, which makes even using it as the feedstock for carbon capture as the IPCC reports less efficient than it would've been if we'd started a decade ago.

So even "plant-based" has pitfalls - yet another reason to focus on local.

Very much so. The reason I emphasize plant-based with some limited dairy and meat where it's available is mostly to get people to break with the current dietary habits of so many people, where they're so entirely reliant on industrialized meat, dairy, and poultry production that they have a hissy fit if there isn't meat or chicken at least once a day. The big exception will always be raising your own off scraps or marginal land - and in that sense, we're really talking about a reversion to what most of our ancestors did at least some of the time either directly (the ol' chicken coop/rabbit hutch you couldn't walk three doors without encountering) or indirectly (pigs etc fatted on the refuse of the streets).

I do wonder about operations like Gotham Greens and other urban farming. Certainly the water use is VASTLY more efficient, and the plants are protected from climate extremes and various pests. It certainly allows growing food locally that might not otherwise be possible. It provides jobs in urban areas, which is where most of the people are. Less land area is required to produce the food. But what about energy costs? Some utilize natural sunlight when possible and artificial lights are supplemental. Some pipe industrially-produced CO2 directly to the plants.

Hydroponics can be done on the cheap with recycled material supplies - I know, because I've done that not once but twice in my lifetime, including one set up that did NOT require electrical power to run. Which is adequate for a household but I don't think these scale up to commercial production efficiency. Still, if you have the space (in truth, you don't need a lot) you might experiment with this, or aquaponics where you integrate fish into a mini-ecosystem in your backyard. I do recommend some automation, like pumps and timers. Specialty lights to promote growth can get pricey, which is why I've always tried to utilize natural sunlight as much as possible. (I did discover that at my latitude we don't get sufficient daylight from November to February to promote growth - those months I supplemented with artificial lights a few hours a day).

But articles such like those I've linked to tend to show the results and gloss over or entirely omit the less wonderful parts of hydroponic/greenhouse farming. There are downsides and problems.

These solutions are mostly useful for the transitional period as we try to keep the population from starving as it declines, and then for more limited uses after we hit a stable level again and for providing a buffer against climate instability causing famine. I have no doubt there'll be some extremely impressive projects producing carbon-neutral or even negative industrialized urban farms, but like every gift of the era of near free energy they'll become more difficult to keep going over the coming century. And that's okay - they'll do their job and do it well until they can't.

..and to develop practical skills that don't rely on extensive energy infrastructure - carpentry, brewing, basic mechanical repair, medicine, masonry, mediation and conflict resolution, blacksmithing, welding. Personally, I make cheeses, smoked goods, and wine, know how to mediate conflicts and draft law codes for unprecedented times (this, in fact, is my real specialty - the intersection of my legal history work and my legal philosophy work) and how to grow food and medicine (and know what to do with them). These skills are only worth their salt if the community knows you have them, so get out there and give the results to your network and encourage them to do the same.

When people list off useful skills like that those they don't include can be as interesting as those they do.[/quote]

Absolutely. Really, almost anything can be a practical skill if it's done well using the right tools and materials.

Myself, I can bring cloth and paper production to the table (by which I mean I can take a raw fleece off a sheep, clean it, spin it, dye it, weave it, and finish it, also felt, also other fiber production, also paper from pulp to finished product from a variety of sources),

Me too, actually, though not enormously well. I used to make artisanal paper for a while and helped a friend out working with their goats for textiles. We wound up with a vaguely passable yarn, though not one that I'd highly recommend for your skivvies - cashmere, it was not.

I can sew - and my main sewing machine is a 19th Century muscle powered machine that requires no electricity.

I've got a lovely old Singer from 1902 myself - absolutely rubbish with it, but many happy memories of being a young wee fella and sitting there pressing the treadle for my mother when she was sewing.

Likewise I have both a working antique spinning wheel and hand spindles for spinning. I can make fishnets as well, and cordage. I have built several weaving looms (yeah, this is sort of my thing). Enough of the fiber arts! I can also repair shoes and did so for several years as my living - could probably make them as well if I had to do so. I have experience with wood working, leatherworking, and building/repairing buildings. I can bake bread, and not only can I bake to a recipe I have sufficient knowledge of the process so that I can modify recipes and make substitutions of ingredients and still get an edible (even tasty!) result. I know how to cook several types of game meat. I know how to do a lot of cooking from scratch by which I mean not only buying separate ingredients at the store but preparing food from raw materials. I know how to clean/filet fish and butcher an animal. I know how to make stained glass and am currently trying my hand at recycling bottles and jars into useful/beautiful objects instead of just chucking them into landfills.

All great examples!

Oh yeah, about garbage - try to reduce it. Bring less material stuff into your home. Recycle what you can. If you can, compost kitchen scraps (I can't in my current apartment, more's the pity, but I used to do that a lot).

And if you can't compost because the weather conditions are wrong or you're finicky about the smell, get a bokashi bin - you can sell the compost that comes out the other end. Or get some rabbits/goats.

I'm not going to try to sell you on the notion that you taking these small steps are going to save the planet. They won't. Oh, if ten million or a half a billion all did the same it might have an impact, but that's not the main thrust here. What it will do is make YOU more flexible and healthy, which will improve the odds the remainder of your life will be a good one, or at least a tolerable one, and you can teach your children (or your chosen community's children, if you have none yourself) how to have a good life even under adverse conditions. Basically, it's being "selfish" in a manner that has the least impact on the planet by trying to optimize your personal survival in a way that does NOT contribute to the problems at hand.

As you said to me - ^ This. Albeit with the caveat that people with these skills contribute to group survival as well by virtue of ensuring that they're available to their community when they're needed and don't need to be relearnt from scratch.

We aren't going back to the pre-industrial world - and I wouldn't want to do so. Not all changes are bad - I wouldn't want to give up modern sanitation or the germ theory, for example. I do hope that, as a species, we get better at understanding how systems interconnect, knock-on effects, and learn to make better long-term choices. I don't know if we will actually do that, but I'm a cock-eyed optimist by nature, it's at least possible.

That's what the conference I was at was really all about - it's coming, how do we ensure the survival of both human beings and the systems we are enmeshed in and part of? What forms of knowledge can be divorced from the age of nearly free energy and carried forward safely? At a follow-up seminar, I faced an interesting bit of resistance from people who hadn't been there - they heard talk of downing tools and resuming early practices and were incapable of understanding that this didn't mean abandonment of everything since 1240AD, but a selective pruning and reappraisal. By day three of five they'd come around, but it's one of the big barriers we're up against - people hear 'we need to go back to some of the old ways' and hear 'and therefore abolish all modern ideals of equality between the sexes and genders, enslave people, and abandon modern medicine'. The narrative of Progress as infinite, unidirectional, and infallible is both powerful and deeply embedded, and we need to find ways to counter it.

[Broomstick]

So even "plant-based" has pitfalls - yet another reason to focus on local.

Very much so. The reason I emphasize plant-based with some limited dairy and meat where it's available is mostly to get people to break with the current dietary habits of so many people, where they're so entirely reliant on industrialized meat, dairy, and poultry production that they have a hissy fit if there isn't meat or chicken at least once a day. The big exception will always be raising your own off scraps or marginal land - and in that sense, we're really talking about a reversion to what most of our ancestors did at least some of the time either directly (the ol' chicken coop/rabbit hutch you couldn't walk three doors without encountering) or indirectly (pigs etc fatted on the refuse of the streets).

Also, selective pruning of wild species that have become plagues. The US State of Michigan is upping the permitted take for deer hunters up to 10 deer each (I'm leaving off the details, deer hunting being regulated in several aspects) this year because there are just too damn many of the things (and fewer hunters). They cause deer vs. vehicle accidents, their population density increases disease, they eat a LOT of vegetation depriving other species of food (and damaging crops that feed people), then when the food is gone their population crashes leading to starvation and carcasses everywhere (well, that helps the carrion eaters, but it's not an ideal approach). The damn things need to be culled, PeTA and "Bambi lovers" be damned, and if we're going to cull them we might as well eat them. My hunter friends will be passing out a lot of meat this fall. I'm going to have to find some new venison recipes.

Likewise, where lobsters have had population explosions off the east coast of the US due to overfishing of other species promoting taking lobsters will help those other species to recover - and if we're going to cull them we might as well eat them.

While I have no problem with people who want to go full vegetarian or vegan I do think there is a role for the omnivore. This is not, however, the factory-farmed-meat-three-times-a-day (as you note) but more as our ancestors ate, meat not being a constant on the table, locally sourced, wild game, farmed animals with a more natural lifecycle, and likely seasonal harvest.

Since we have had the arrogance to eliminate or severely reduce many predators, throwing herbivore populations out of whack, restoring a balance/preserving what's left will require us humans to fill in the role of predators in a measured and thoughtful manner.

Even though I have the additional problem of multiple food allergies which put many common vegetarian staples permanently off limits for me I have still managed to significantly reduce my consumption of meat over the past decade. This is something that could be done by virtually everyone but there are so many problems with culture, tradition, egotism, and misinformation we're going to struggle with this going forward.

But articles such like those I've linked to tend to show the results and gloss over or entirely omit the less wonderful parts of hydroponic/greenhouse farming. There are downsides and problems.

These solutions are mostly useful for the transitional period as we try to keep the population from starving as it declines, and then for more limited uses after we hit a stable level again and for providing a buffer against climate instability causing famine. I have no doubt there'll be some extremely impressive projects producing carbon-neutral or even negative industrialized urban farms, but like every gift of the era of near free energy they'll become more difficult to keep going over the coming century. And that's okay - they'll do their job and do it well until they can't.

I think they'll have continuing usefulness over the long term, but the details will change with time and circumstance, because this is something that can scale with size. Just as a remote homestead can have its energy needs supplied (by modern standards) a crude windmill and not a massive turbine type windmill, and a homestead can raise chickens for meat and eggs on kitchen scraps, garden bugs, and modest additional inputs, a "garden" size hydro/aquaponics set up can be useful as well. I've used mine to keep supplying fresh food during the winter. It's an extension of things like green houses and cold frames.

I can sew - and my main sewing machine is a 19th Century muscle powered machine that requires no electricity.

I've got a lovely old Singer from 1902 myself - absolutely rubbish with it, but many happy memories of being a young wee fella and sitting there pressing the treadle for my mother when she was sewing.

One of the challenges of using such machines is inadequate maintenance. When I got mine I had to clean a century worth of lint and thread scraps out of it. I've restored a number of old sewing machines to use, and when properly done they require little efforts. When I worked in shoe repair we used commercial grade treadle machines that were 150+ years old and still working. People would ask why we were still using muscle-powered machines, why hadn't we electrified them? More precise control and fewer injuries. The old ways really are sometimes better.

That said, there are applications where a 21st Century machine works better, but they tend to be outside a lot of routine household sewing.

Oh yeah, about garbage - try to reduce it. Bring less material stuff into your home. Recycle what you can. If you can, compost kitchen scraps (I can't in my current apartment, more's the pity, but I used to do that a lot).

And if you can't compost because the weather conditions are wrong or you're finicky about the smell, get a bokashi bin - you can sell the compost that comes out the other end. Or get some rabbits/goats.

In my case it's a lack of space - I'm living in a more urbanized area in a multi-unit building that really doesn't provide a space for this sort of thing. Not sure how to work around that in a practical way. But you're point certainly applies to many living situations. We do need to do more work allowing such things, as too many local regulations were put in place in the 20th Century forbidding "farm animals" or "farm activities", but I think more people are open to changing the rules.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The ITV report also mentioned the elephant in the room being China followed by the USA having the greatest emissions and unless they get on board it will wipe out any gains made by the rest of the world.

To be fair, the UK is making advances when it comes to recycling household waste, how comprehensive it is being a real postcode lottery due to it being devolved.

Thing with carbon capture is, they're basically reinventing the tree. Regardless, the UK is investing in four such projects:
Government to help fund four carbon capture and storage hubs in the UK.

[loomer]

The real elephant in the room is neither China nor the USA, but the massive downscale of effectively free energy and the enormous conveniences it has offered. That's the bit no one in politics is willing to confront because it's career suicide to go and tell the entire nation that they need to lower their standard of living (even if, in many other respects, it will rise) and make vast and sweeping changes to the way they interact with the world. The Narrative of Progress has poisoned the well, and the co-opting of various movements to rethink our trajectory by ecofascists has only deepened the distrust.

[Broomstick]

About "standard of living" - a lot of the problem there is how it's defined: amassing material goods and power-hungry conveniences. As opposed to family and friendship, community connections, and connection to the rest of the life on the planet. This can result in unhappy wealthy people sitting isolated in their homes puzzled as to why the relatively poor can nonetheless be happy.

[His Divine Shadow]

Isn't that why so many people today are unhappy and an increasing number of people have mental issues. Despite the material wealth.

[Broomstick]

Likely.

I do think we, like many other animals, have a drive to acquire resources, which is where acquiring "stuff" comes in. But we're social animals, as we're not happy unless we're part of a group (a few outliers excepted). Having a great group membership but great impoverishment materially (inadequate food, shelter, etc.) brings certain sort of of unhappiness, because we need stuff to the extent of needing adequate shelter, food, etc. On the flip side, having all the material stuff in the world will not make a person happy if they have no society in which to fit, because we also need social connections.

Thus, you can be poor and happy or rich and miserable (or really unfortunate and BOTH poor and isolated, and thus unhappy, or really well off by being both rich and with a great social life, and thus happy).