Erm, because we all want our children and children’s children to have happy lives?
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainabl. Everyone wanting to have children will always make it harder to keep the climate stable as they will all want to travel, buy and consume stuff perpetuating the cycle
Population decline is in full swing in most westernised countries (UK probably will due to Brexit lack of immigration) plus second poorer countries and whilst it solves some climate change isssue is brings short term issues of aging populations.
g5604
Free Member
Of course the electrification of cars is a good thing, how are people still questioning this?
I wasn't questioning EV's, just making the point that they are only part of the solution.
Interesting to note someone is saying qre at 40% renewables on the grid, interesting that, obviously my info a bit out of date. But still putting all the petrol and diesel emissions on to the grid say the morra, would knock that back a bit. how much I don't know. interested if anyone would know?
Interesting to note someone is saying qre at 40% renewables on the grid, interesting that, obviously my info a bit out of date.
20% carbon free as of just now.
Population decline is in full swing in most westernised countries (UK probably will due to Brexit lack of immigration)
whilst this is a start the U.K. population is still going up according the ons. Globally though population is still rising and consumption is increasing
The interesting one is gas, Squirrelking. 53% as I type. That is not a comfortable position for a nation to be in right now as North Sea production goes into free fall.
I suspect the person quoting 40% meant renewables plus carbon neutral which means nuclear.
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainabl.
Why do people keep saying this as if it was an accepted fact? It’s total bollocks. The problem is how we distribute and use resources, not how many people there are. This population stuff is just eugenic nonsense.
Population is a problem unless you are happy with the vast majority of people living unpleasant subsistance lives shortene by poor living conditions, Dazh.
The short term sustainable population might be 8 billion (UN) with intensive agriculture, fossil fuels and a progresive destruction of the environment. But that's not my idea of sustainable.
My idea of sustainable includes a reasonable quality of life, a level of economic activity sustainable for centuries rather than decades and environmental stability rather than progresive degradation. That gets hard to achieve beyond 2 billion. Do some Googling.
dazh
Full Member
The problem is how we distribute and use resources
It's no even that it's a question of energy production and emissions.
Population and consumption can continue to grow if we make the technological switch. It's no co-incidence that the energy production curve and emissions curves directly correlate to each other, particularly since the 50s.
We just need to change how we create energy, and population and consumption can continue as is.
I also think it's just unrealistic to expect either population or consumption to reduce. That's just not how people live.
Abstinence is a terrible solution tbh. Not least for the economic harm it'll also cause.
My idea of sustainable includes a reasonable quality of life, a level of economic activity sustainable for centuries rather than decades and environmental stability rather than progresive degradation. That gets hard to achieve beyond 2 billion.
So your solution is to kill 5 billion people to protect your way of life? Right… 😳
wbo - I live as I say - "do as you would be done by". I have a much more sustainable lifestyle than most in the UK - no car, no kids, no pets. I do not buy consumer goods new if I can possibly avoid it, I don't upgrade for the sake of it and I rarely fly. I buy food with the lowest food miles I can etc etc.
Even this as a more sustainable western lifestyle is not nearly enough. this is the issue - fiddling around the edges with PVs and EVs and so on is not enough. We simply need as a planet to be using less energy and to move people and things around far less and to consume less
Green consumerism is an oxymoron.
20% carbon free as of just now.
No such thing - you mean lower carbon. all energy generation has a carbon penalty - from the concrete and steel in windfarms to the pollution from extracting uranium and the concrete in the power stations
i understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainable.
Sorry, but i have to say i think this is a false premise.(Not a criticism of the poster,only the notion)
I mean, who decides such, who says its overpopulated and what exactly are they basing that supposition on 😕
usually the proposal is based on food supply - ie if all the food available was shared out equally would everyone have enough to eat?
the other aspect sometimes used is carbon cost of lifestyles - now as above I am sure I have a lower carbon lifestyle than most in the west - but if everyone on the planet had my lifestyle it still would not be sustainable. IIRC my lifestyle if followed by everyone on the planet we would need nearly two earths worth of resources.
if everyone on the planet had the lifestyles of the average westerner then something like 4 planets worth of resources would be needed
So either the west needs massive cuts in consumption and resource usage or those in developing nations are not allowed to raise their standard of living or we need less people - which do you choose?
So either the west needs massive cuts in consumption and resource usage or those in developing nations are not allowed to raise their standard of living or we need less people
Yup, i can see that. Things need to be done differently.
– which do you choose?
Now now, thats enough of that 😕
tjagain
Full Member
We simply need as a planet to be using less energy and to move people and things around far less and to consume less
how do you deal with the ensuing economic collapse?
I suspect the person quoting 40% meant renewables plus carbon neutral which means nuclear.
Renewables + nuclear = carbon neutral. Switch to 'meters' view and it's far more obvious. But yes, wind is doing far better today too. But no, we are not in a good place at all. Again, something that has been warned about for years but nobody did anything about.
No such thing – you mean lower carbon. all energy generation has a carbon penalty – from the concrete and steel in windfarms to the pollution from extracting uranium and the concrete in the power station
TJ I offered you books, if you can't be bothered listening I won't bother explaining.
Suffice to say whilst you are technically correct you're still talking rubbish. I meant exactly what I said, I have the technical qualification, you don't so stop trying to tell me what I do or don't mean.
tjagain
Full Member
which do you choose?
I choose a complete switch in energy production.
Go on squirrelking - explain to me how you can have carbon zero energy production?
All energy production has a carbon penalty. Its a simple statement of fact. You cannot have energy production without some CO2 emission. some forms are much lower than others yes - but none are zero
Renewables all have a carbon cost as does nuclear if you look at total lifetime CO2 cost which is the only sensible way. I am glad you agree i am "technically correct" as calling nuclear and renewables carbon free is simply wrong
I guess you mean once you discount the costs of building and removing the plant and in the case of nuclear digging and refining the fuel as well
Zero emmissions is a bit of a daft target, it's not neccessary, particularly in the short to medium term, what we need to do is stop burning stuff for energy.
Get rid of the first 2 and we're quite a bit there. Ye can deal with the higher hanging fruit at a later date.
*first 2 and other high co2 per KWH sources
I choose a complete switch in energy production.
To what?
You have to survive a winter high pressure weather event in the UK
Massive expansion of nuclear will take a long time and there is an serious issue with fuel if we do this expansion ( until thorium or fast breeders can be got to work)
Wind is intermittent and you cannot spool up nuclear fast enough to deal with the fluctuations
Solar is not very efficient in UK in winter and of course produces nothing for more than 12 hours a day during this winter high pressure event
Pump storage only has a few hours of UK usage - not enough for that winter high pressure event which can last up to two weeks
tidal smoothed by pump storage would work but its been starved of resources and has its own issues and again lead times are too long
IMO the only answer is a massive reduction in energy usage. anything else is greenwash.
mix of everything, it doesn't need to happen tomorrow. nuclear would play a significant part aye.
IMO the only answer is a massive reduction in energy usage. anything else is greenwash.
And how you dealing with the economic collapse? The economy relies on energy.
Efficiencies and reductions are also a big part of a solution. You can't solve the problem through them though, when they get detrimental to economic output, they are counter productive.
And how you dealing with the economic collapse? The economy relies on energy.
First step is to covert the economy to carbon taxation.
what yo are saying is there is nothing you can do
this is the issue - our current western economy is unsustainable and the developing nations want to reach our style of living
without either a new magic wand on energy production ( thorium / fast breeders / something else) we cannot go on like this
Its either reduce energy consumption massively or face the consequences of massive climate change. Which will have the least effects?
If you reduce energy beyond what is currently being used without replacing it with renewables, the ensuing economic chaos will be much worse in the short/medium and long term. Ye can't just turn off the tap.
The answer is a long term switch in energy production. There's going to be consequences I think anyhow, it's about working through the technological change as quick as we can.
Expecting people to go back to living with the same amount of energy as was used in the first half of the 20th century is entirely unrealistic.
And how you dealing with the economic collapse? The economy relies on energy
We need governments to create new markets and taxes that reward low carbon usage. The world will change fast, but it needs some leadership...
I do agree we need to financially incentivise renewable and dis-incentivise fossil fuels.
IMO the only answer is a massive reduction in energy usage. anything else is greenwash.
Or some other brave new world suggestion i imagine. But where could such savings be made ?, personally I cant really think of anywhere we could revolutionize to make that great of a difference.
Fusion reactors on the horizon, so we could be getting more power, not less.
There are so many easy ways to reduce energy. It's really not hard, we are incredibly wasteful.
personally I cant really think of anywhere we could revolutionize to make that great of a difference.
I can think of a load that individually make little difference but together across years and countries would make a huge difference
Increase aviation taxation hugely. stop the flying of out of season fresh food, stop fresh food production in heatred greenhouses - yes yo can only get strawberries in season then - oh no - civilisation will collapse
rachet up fuel costs for private motoring - stop the senseless waster of energy that comes with commuting
~stop the lighting up of buildings overnight
Insulate existing housing stock properly
Insist all new properties are insulated to passivhous standards and have solar panel roofs
etc etc etc
Loads of tiny steps
Oh - and fusion powerr has been 20 years away for the last 60 years. No sign of it yet becomeing viable in a timescale that actually makes a differnce
Aye many of those suggestions make perfect sense and would be easy to implement, In Glasgow there's a drive to insulate homes, mine was done a couple of years ago as part of a Glasgow district council imitative, and I believe the building new homes that are better insulated is something the government is considering. Probably cost is a factor in insulating many home in the UK, Scotland aside, as due to the pandemic funds for these projects cannot just now be initiated, but im more than sure they will pass legislation forcing building firms to insulate new homes as a matter of principle and look to sponsor firms with lucrative contracts to better insulate existing homes.
Increase aviation taxation hugely. stop the flying of out of season fresh food, stop fresh food production in heated greenhouses – yes you can only get strawberries in season then – oh no – civilization will collapse
Although this suggestion might cost too much given we would be talking about destroying supply chains and the knock on effect of seed suppliers,picker, general staff and transportation and also the relevant companies that supply the UK and elsewhere with fruit of fresh salads etc.
To do such we are talking about basically drawing a line through tens of thousands of jobs.
Oh – and fusion power has been 20 years away for the last 60 years. No sign of it yet becoming viable in a timescale that actually makes a differnce
Again no need for little sarcastic snipes but currently the government is considering 4 or 5 sites to build one of these fusion reactors, and they believe such technology is now within our grasp. Many problems have been overcome and while i admit to also not understanding the science behind it all, I'm sure this is a problem we will crack given the impetus is now on making it happen.
I’m sure this is a problem we will crack given the impetus is now on making it happen.
In all the years I've been following fussion, each new reactor the scientists get to play with moves commercial fussion further away. They produce lots of interesting stuff about particles and matter but when asked about how long they can maintain a stable plasma that doesn't destroy their reactor start getting evasive. Add a few questions about how they are progressing with the practical engineering solutions needed to heat water with this super hot plasma and they haven't even started. Which is where the next doomed to failure reactor comes in after JET and ITER. Taking previous efforts in a predictive way, They'll find a site, raise the cash on false hopes, build it, play with it and declare they need a bigger better reactor.
Have a read of this and see what you think, dyna-ti. The misconceptions about how much energy goes in a comes out are made clear. Even if ITER can produce a stable plasma it'll be consuming as much energy as it could potentially produce. The next generation will have to do better than that and incorporate all the gubbins to heat water. Given the inefficiencies in generation it's going to have to much better.
https://whyy.org/segments/fusion-energy/
I doubt I'll live to read about a sustainable plasma capable of producing as much power as it takes to sustain it. And I'll never read about a fussion power station producing more power than it consumes.
TJ's comments aren't sarcastic snipes, they are an objective appraisal.
Well it doesnt read well does it. But less of a misconception and more of a fabrication, with those involved seemingly knowing understanding but refusing to acknowledge. So maybe as you say about large research grants, and as they say more of a scientific curiosity than a practical application.
But Im still going to hope that such technology will in the future produce results giving us a safe supply of power.
Reason for this is how quickly our understanding has come in under 100 years, with many of the breakthroughs in many fields happening in the last 50.
Thanks for the link, though it was quite a depressing read.
* I wasnt chiding TJ on a personal level over sarcastic or flippant snipes, but sometimes I feel theres no need to add. But as you say " objective appraisal " is fair enough. I can understand that sentiment.
So your solution is to kill 5 billion people to protect your way of life? Right… 😳
Congratulations you have won absurd extrapolation of the day competition. A fine effort sir.
The problem is how we distribute and use resources, not how many people there are.
Given the low likelihood that the distribution and use o resources will change a great deal in the next 30 years then suggesting lower population (with all else equal) would definitely help, i.e. how much of a climate change problem would we have if the population of the world was 1,000 people.
What makes the suggestion a stupid one is that the chance of any country drastically reducing their population (and therefore their production/output) is even less likely that them doing anything really constructive about tackling climate change.
Go on squirrelking – explain to me how you can have carbon zero energy production?
I'd be interested in this, because I always understood wind farms to have an embodied CO2 content, even though its very low given how much power they produce, so surely they're a low carbon energy source rather than zero energy.....
rUK going to be screwed when Scotland gets independence for their % of renewables.
understand that but given that the fundamental problem is there are too many people on the planet to be sustainabl.
Who says there are too many people on the planet? what is the max number of people the planet can sustain? who is driving the growth in population?
The data has been collected, numbers have been crunched and conclusions drawn...
personally I cant really think of anywhere we could revolutionize to make that great of a difference.
We do things that just make no sense other than profit. One example. On the shelves of every major supermarket you can find plastic cups filled with sliced fruit in a syrup of juice. One I found in Tesco had the pears grown in China, they were prepared in Peru (i.e. peeled, sliced, put into small plastic containers and filled with syrup/juice) and then shipped to the UK.
Pears will grow on trees in the UK...It's literally only being done because some-one somewhere is making pennies on each wee little plastic tub. This kind of shit happens all the time to millions of consumer products. We could revolutionise that for a start.
Pears will grow on trees in the UK…It’s literally only being done because some-one somewhere is making pennies on each wee little plastic tub.
I agree with this but there are many reasons why this happens....alot of it is driven politically and not just economically.
Also we talk a good game about growing more of our own food and being more self sufficient...but that is contrary to what is going on in farming right now where there seems to be a big drive to limit how much we can produce e...stuff like re-wilding projects, banning certain pesticides that significantly reduce yield of crops, and generally making it impossible for farmers to make any money. A recent Harry's Farm episode he discussed on one hand it is becoming more and more difficult for farmers to make any money growing food, but here are massive incentives to grow stuff to burn to generate power...so more and more farmers are turning away from growing food to growing stuff to burn for sustainable energy productions....so our reliance on imported food will likely increase and not decrease, and its its not produced locally and has to come form far afield then it needs to be preserved and protected i.e. alot more packaging.
Carbon tax would sort that sort of nonsense. rebalancing the economy ( it could not be done overnight) so that ALL taxation is based on the pollution embedded in the thing would do - then UK grown pairs become cheaper ( maybe) but the packaged ones that have traveled thousands of miles would become more expensive
I do agree we need to financially incentivise renewable and dis-incentivise fossil fuels.
If ever there was a time that we should be accelerating retiring our reliance on gas, it's now.
If ever there was a time that we should be accelerating retiring our reliance on gas, it’s now.
Yes but what do you replace the energy production with? How fast do you retire the use of fossil fuels. It is clear WHAT we need to do...that is easy but what is hard is HOW to do it.
One thing we HAVE to protect is the progress of developing nations. Developing nations need cheap energy to feed their development. If we hamper this it will cause more deaths than climate change itself.
Rather than punitive charges like carbon taxes which will put people out of business and reduce the amount of money generated to fund finding solutions to solving the climate change problem...and it is a problem that will cost many trillions of dollars to solve....maybe all the nations of the world come together to try to help developing nations develop whilst using green energy: some sort of subsidy programme that we all contribute to.
Simple and un-thought through thinking like 'just slap on a carbon tax' is going to get us nowhere.
This is a complicated problem and requires sophisticated and more intelligent thinking.
Also we talk a good game about growing more of our own food and being more self sufficient…but that is contrary to what is going on in farming right now where there seems to be a big drive to limit how much we can produce e…stuff like re-wilding projects, banning certain pesticides that significantly reduce yield of crops, and generally making it impossible for farmers to make any money.
The counter to this is that there a number of environments where we're incentivising production on unsuitable land through subsidy that offers extremely poor value for money and poor, low production and low returns for farmers. Nicotinamide pesticides are damaging pollinators and hence farms ability to produce in the longer term. That money would be better spent on using that land to better manage water and carbon, e.g. marginal areas of upland sheep farming
Self sufficient is a myth. The UK is so seasonal it'd be impossible to feed the population from within our borders year round but we can produce surplus for export in the summer months that could be offset against winter imports.
The most sophisticated and intelligent thinking brings us back to a staggeringly simple strategy. You know those people getting arrested for campaigning for insulation. They're right.
With the right incentives and punitive measures people will insulate. A few ideas.
Zero % loans for insulation.
Zero VAT on insulating materials and work.
Tax credit on insulation investment.
Punitive rent limits on poorly performing property. Energy bills deductable from rent in poorly performing property.
Punitive tax on unoccupied rental property.
Punitive stamp duty on the sale of poorly performing property.
Use your imagination, a mixture of carrot and stick will get property insulated.
then UK grown pairs become cheaper ( maybe) but the packaged ones that have traveled thousands of miles would become more expensive
It's the poorest that rely on those imports though, you'd have to drop the price of UK produce significantly to put it in teach of them
Also what are selling to South Africa, costa Rica, Spain etc that they're going to slap additional duty on in retaliation?
With the right incentives and punitive measures people will insulate. A few ideas.
All good ideas with some logic behind them and would probably improve things in the UK. But this is a global problem. What percentage improvement/contribution to the GLOABL issue vs cost does this represent? and it might be the case we would get a better cost vs contribution outcome if we were to take that money and invest in a clean energy plant in Bangladesh or something like that.
We in the UK don't produce enough CO2 to make a significant difference...we're 1% of CO2 emissions. We can reduce 50% of emissions and it wont make as much impact if we were to invest our money and efforts into reducing the CO2 emissions of a far more polluting country.
Ultimately all these things need doing but we need to target the big hitters...those 20% that causes 80% of the problem to get the biggest bang for our book.
We're a rich country and most people can afford to insulate their homes. Unfortunately some homes cannot be insulated or there is a limit to how much they can be insulated due to the way they were constructed. Minor second order things like this are drawing far too much attention and diverting important debates and efforts in far more promising solutions and avenues that will actually have a significant impact.
We in the UK don’t produce enough CO2 to make a significant difference
You might want to check the historic emissions, remember when we took over the world and mined it for all it was worth? Also does your 1% of CO2 emissions take into account that we have subcontracted nearly all of our production and pollution to other countries?
We in the UK don’t produce enough CO2 to make a significant difference…we’re 1% of CO2 emissions
Although being ‘only’ a population of 67 million we absolutely have made a significant difference historically, being the top (per capita) polluter. Obviously that train has largely sailed as more populous countries have stacked up to burn coal after our lead.
But does your ‘1%’ include emissions that we outsource to China and ‘developing nations’?
Good overview here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-change
Congratulations you have won absurd extrapolation of the day competition. A fine effort sir.
It's a good idea though, that's five each for two billion of us, some days I'd happily be into double figures by my mid morning brew.
We’re a rich country and most people can afford to insulate their homes.
But choose not to and spend the money on multiple holidays instead, often flying. See the various heating threads on this very forum. The most resistant to insulating often drive flash thirsty cars and live in energy seives. And have a **** the environment attitude to go with it. I should name and shame but won't.
Although being ‘only’ a population of 67 million we absolutely have made a significant difference historically, being the top (per capita) polluter. Obviously that train has largely sailed as more populous countries have stacked up to burn coal after our lead.
But does your ‘1%’ include emissions that we outsource to China and ‘developing nations’?
We've not always been a nation of 67 million people, and today we are 10% of the global population contributing to 1% of CO2 emissions so not doing too badly for ourselves. And we are in the process of reducing our CO2 emissions unlike alot of the biggest polluting nations who are still increasing their CO2 emissions.
I'm struggling to understand what we can do about historical emissions...that ship has sailed unfortunately. Unless you are suggesting some form of punishment has to be dished out to us for our historical emissions of course...but again how is that going to reduce CO2 emissions.
But we either want to reduce emissions TODAY or we don't. Attacking 1% of global emissions is not going to solve or significantly contribute to that goal.
If we invent some form of carbon capture technology that actually works then fine...we can suck out carbon we have historically pumped into the atmosphere. But that technology doesn't exist and wont for some time if ever.
But I think for us countries that have become developed and rich off the back of cheap dirty fuel then support and subsidise developing nations that cant afford clean energy then I think that is a nice way for us to recognise that we have been the historical polluters and are looking to make up for that in helping developing nations for the sake of the greater good.
As for the 1% figure I don't know how these things are calculated but they are the official figures so not something I've just made up off the top of my head. We can split hairs all we like on the stat's but it wont change the fact that we cannot influence this global problem no matter what we do nationally....if we really want to be part of the solution then our efforts have to be International in looking at ways we can help other nations reduce their emissions.
It is technology that will solve this problem....there is only so much we can do by reducing our energy consumption so we need new technology to reduce co2 in the atmosphere and deploy that technology in the countries that are the most polluting and the developing countries that need cheap energy to develop. That is the best and most useful contribution we in the UK can make.
We’ve not always been a nation of 67 million people, and today we are 10% of the global population contributing to 1% of CO2 emissions so not doing too badly for ourselves.
Nope. Less than 1% of the global population producing more than 1% of CO2.
UK per capita emissions are edit: similar to China.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country
We need to start here, it's not other countries that are the problem it's us, wherever we live in the western world.
. Unless you are suggesting some form of punishment has to be dished out to us for our historical emissions of course…but again how is that going to reduce CO2 emissions.
Why does it have to be a punishment ? There are so many little changes that will make sod all difference to our daily lives. Take a bar of soap vs Shower gel. The soap is cheaper, last longer, comes in compostable packaging, lighter so uses less CO2 to ship and uses up to 10 time less energy to produce. Shower gel exists entirely to have better product placement on a shelf.
@wobbliscott the UK population is not 10% of the global population? it’s equivalent to 0.87% of the total world population?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/
As for the 1% figure I don’t know how these things are calculated but they are the official figures so not something I’ve just made up off the top of my head. We can split hairs all we like on the stat’s but it wont change the fact that we cannot influence this global problem no matter what we do nationally
As long as we have purchasing-power and/or global influence we can always be doing something.
It’s old news that we began outsourcing our emissions. It’s just not ‘popular’ news. 10 years ago the UK’s outsourced emissions almost doubled its carbon footprint.
According to UN data, China’s share of global manufacturing output climbed from 8.7 per cent in 2004 to 28.4 per cent in 2018.
Across the same period, the manufacturing contribution to Britain’s gross domestic product more than halved from 25 per cent to about 11 per cent. Manufacturing in the US also has hollowed out, while in the past decade the EU has become a net importer of emissions-intensive steel. Does this mean the British, US and EU economies have stopped using emissions-intensive goods? Not at all. They’re still using steel, aluminium and cement. They are still buying cars and appliances and consuming beef and other food. It’s just that they are importing more instead.
And under global climate rules the emissions generated producing those goods are counted against the nation that produces them, not the country that consumes them.
*my bold
Oops you're right...I'm an order of magnitude out. So we're 0.87% of global population producing about 1% and falling.
But 40% of Chinese people live in rural areas and living in relative squalor and consume alot less energy than those who live in the city and are predicted to move to bigger towns and cities over the next 10 years or so and as they do their energy consumption will increase massively. And ultimately actual volumes and tonnage of CO2 emissions is the only thing that matters here....We can shut the UK down tomorrow and propel us back into the Stone Ange and it will have sweet FA impact on the global climate change.
My main point is we are doing what we can by and large domestically and continue to do so. But without bigger more international thinking then we're going to fail in our CO2 emissions ambitions/goals. Depressingly so our main hope lies in the big international conventions like COP and our illustrious leaders to come up with a global solution.
You've missed the point up there from p7heaven that Britain produces huge amounts of CO2 in China when it imports textiles, cars, bikes, iphones etc. Wobbliscott. The 1% figure is misleading.
More insults from you as usual Molgrips. Think about how convincing that makes your arguments. 🙂
So you don't want to breath cleaner air? You are happy to live surrounded by landfill? No problem with our polluted rivers and seas? Shall we just chop the last few trees down in the UK and be done with it?
I guess you don't tidy up your own house because you neighbours don't bother ?
I guess you don’t tidy up your own house because you neighbours don’t bother ?
Some interesting reading here (discounting the tabloidesque title) :
U.S., Europe or China: Who is the global climate’s superhero?
As ever I find it difficult to locate specific and up-to-date data for per capita emissions factoring in imported/outsourced.
They aren’t being arrested just for campaigning, are they? It’s the way they are choosing to campaign. Their methods IMO are terrible as they just make everyone hate them which is the opposite of what you need to be a success.
They aren't entering a popularity comtest, they're trying to get the issue of insulation into people's consciousness, which they've arguably succeeded in doing. As for their methods, maybe the establishment conspiracy to black out news of the XR protests earlier led to them feeling impelled to use more extreme approaches.
To often the government solutions and policy are simplistic and half baked.
Lots of money has been pushed into cavity wall insulation for unsuitable properties.
Smart energy meters, several different types, so you may need to have a new meter when you change supplier or they just become dumb meters. They aren't smart enough to provide the interface you really need to automatically control appliances inline with variable elec. prices.
Transport is the biggest source of carbon emissions in this country, but a straight transition to EV vehicles misses the opportunity to change the way we travel, improving rail and city centre public transport.
More insults from you as usual Molgrips. Think about how convincing that makes your arguments.
Mate I'm not insulting you, just your arguments! There's no excuse for that level of disingenuousness, it makes you no better than a tabloid.
We can shut the UK down tomorrow and propel us back into the Stone Ange and it will have sweet FA impact on the global climate change.
It all adds up.
Mate I’m not insulting you
You most definitely are:
Edukator was still being a bell-end,
That is a personal insult that has nothing to do with me pointing out that the protesters demanding we insulate are right.
Now who is being disingeneous?
Icidentally I've noticed that anyone who calls me "mate" on this forum is using the term as a put down and most definitely isn't a mate in the context of being friendly.
Anything constructive to add about climate change, Molgrips?
They aren’t being arrested just for campaigning, are they? It’s the way they are choosing to campaign. Their methods IMO are terrible as they just make everyone hate them which is the opposite of what you need to be a success.
This sort of argument always makes me remember the anti nuclear protests in the 80s. In the UK they all stood around and held hands and sang songs. In france they attacked the sites with bazookas!
We can shut the UK down tomorrow and propel us back into the Stone Ange and it will have sweet FA impact on the global climate change.
This is true but does not absolve us from doing our bit and we could also become both a example of best practice adn produce technologies to export
this is however the basic reason why i am so pessimistic. the US is the worst per head of population - dunno the latest figures but at one point were 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds greenhouse gas production
then we have developing nations like India and china who want to get to western levels of prosperity. Its hypocritical to tell them they cannot develop while we carry on polluting
I still remain convinced tho the planet is FUBAR because the US, china, India will not take the steps required and even in Europe we will not - look at all the folk on here who claim nothing can be done
Unfortunately much of Europe has fallen for the myth of pale green consumerism which means fiddling around the edges not taking the radical steps that will actually make a difference. an example of this is the hybrid / electic SUV. there is no significant energy reduction with these. what we need is 500kg cars not 2000 kilo cars
the only thing that will work ( until fusion comes onboard) is consume less of everything including energy
So you don’t want to breath cleaner air? You are happy to live surrounded by landfill? No problem with our polluted rivers and seas? Shall we just chop the last few trees down in the UK and be done with it?
I guess you don’t tidy up your own house because you neighbours don’t bother ?
Er no. I've acknowledged we're improving our environment and that is good and we should continue to do that but all. But in itself it isn't a solution to the global problem. We now have clean rivers and coastlines and more trees than we've had in centuries and CO2 levels are falling etc. Obviously more than we can do and we're doing it.
I'm saying is don't pat yourself on your back because in the global context of the challenge our contribution isn't even measurable.
Go on I think we're all wanting the same outcome but just debating the best way to get there. Personally I'm interested int he bigger picture stuff....all the stuff we waffle on about generally is the small 'in the noise' stuff...of course it all adds up but its a case of prioritisation and making sure we don't end up with the unintended consequences trap that Germany fell into in instigation f short terms and popularist knee jerk reactions to placate a small minority of activists. We just need to take the emotion out of it and make sensible and evidence based decisions.
But as individuals we can just do what we can do so lets crack on.
We now have clean rivers and coastlines
Hmm. We have less industrial pollution but still massive nutrient loading and cso pollution
We now have clean rivers
This is news. Do you have a (sic, sic, sic!) source for that data please?
Germany fell into in instigation f short terms and popularist knee jerk reactions to placate a small minority of activists.
In fact in 2011 it was the majority of the population that wanted to shut down the nuclear plants and compenstate the energy companies. There were multiple opinion polls. Here's one:
The majority wanted out of nuclear by 2020 or earlier even if it meant increased CO2 production. The mandate for the government to shut down th enuclear plants was far stronger than for say Brexit.
Recent polls say that opinion has now tipped in favour of using nuclear to cut CO2 emissions.
That is a personal insult that has nothing to do with me pointing out that the protesters demanding we insulate are right.
You said they were arrested for protesting. That's not strictly accurate, they were arrested for blocking traffic on purpose whilst protesting.
We now have clean rivers
This is news.
Not really. They've got worse recently but they are still far cleaner than they were fifty years ago. Salmon in the Taff would have been unthinkable then.
We might be heading in the right direction finally, but far too slowly and nowhere near the level that is required.
his is news. Do you have a (sic, sic, sic!) source for that data please?
No...are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
I know I was swimming in the Trent over the summer something I wouldn't have done 20 years ago and it was crystal clear...fish and water life numbers have been increasing and general water wildlife increasing. Generally every wildlife programme and documentary I've seen in the last 10 years talks about how rivers and waterways are cleaning up. No reason to assume they're lying atey're the same people who are informing us about climate change and a whole host of other ills and problems we face today.
Depends what you consider as clean...but fish populations are increasing as is general water wildlife. Many wildlife centres around me are abundant in massive increase and recovery of wildlife both on land and in the water.
To say we've made no progress over recent decades is just wrong. Alway more we can do of course and I'm not sure what success looks like...what are the goals and when do we say job done? but if you want to say our rivers are dirty then they'll never be clean enough for the likes of you.
You've latched onto the press headlines not the facts, Molgrips.
A High Court injunction banning protests around the M25 and Dartford Crossing was issued on 23 September.
It stated demonstrators were banned from "causing damage to the surface" on or around the M25.
It was the protest methods, glue, paint etc. that led to the charges being brought against very few protesters. The charges were conspiracy to commit criminal damage not blocking traffic. The police by their own admission couldn't do much about people blocking the traffic which is why an injunction was sought to make it illegal.
The government was granted an injunction by the High Court last week banning anyone from blocking the M25 following the group's initial protests.
Anyone who breaks an injunction can be found in contempt of court and could face two years in prison and an unlimited fine.
So those arrested initially were arrested for painting and gluing AKA protesting.
No…are you saying our rivers and coastline is dirtier and more polluted than they were say 20 years ago?
Maybe you've not seen the news wobbliscott. Yes the EU's legislation cleaned up our water hugely in recent decades. I remember bits of turds floating past in the sea when I was young (~1970s).
One of the great unsung benefits of Brexit is getting rid of all this meddlesome European bureaucracy and we're now dumping sewage and other pollution into water courses around the country again. British turds on British beaches! Put that on the side of a bus.
(It's marginally more complex than that, in that the legislation is still in place, it's just being ignored, and of course the EU cannot force the UK govt to do anything about it.)
Yeah it's not job done. No idea why you would think this.
British turds on British beaches!
Be nice about the sunbathers.
Congratulations you have won absurd extrapolation of the day competition. A fine effort sir.
No it's just the logical conclusion from saying the planet can only support 2 billion people. It's rubbish, and an excuse for not accepting that we have to change the way we organise society.
Of course it's not a logical conclusion. Dont be absurd.
Hi, I think the world is overpopulated and perhaps 2 billion might be sustainable
Isnt code for
Hi I want to kill 5 billion people