They all want the best new graduates to go and work for them, so if the likes of BAE, Babcock and BP are cooperating with universities, setting up placement programs, and working with professional engineering bodies I would consider that pretty normal.

However, those same graduates could be doing far more proactive careers in the sustainable and clean energy market, which for some reason doesn’t have anything like the funding, or corporate backing…

It’s by no means a knee jerk reaction when their largest markets are all heavily involved in the continued expansion of the oil industry, which is intrinsically tied to the ‘defence’ industry:

Fact #2: "For much of the past century, a major function of the military has been to secure access for US-based companies to fossil fuel resources in the Middle East and elsewhere."

Our military doesn't just burn through endless fuel, it does so to find more fuel to burn. (3/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

In terms of it being a problem with us all, a big part of that problem is that there is not sufficient awareness, for whatever reason (The example of Sir Bernard Gray may give us some indication of why that might be).

Why do peacekeeping forces need arms?

Pan-seared-in-oil Steamtroopers

Panchef Leia

Flan-dough From-Fridge-Again

Good find!

Rumour has it that all sorts of dodgy business goes on all around the world with military aircraft…

But but before we stray too far off topic, in addition to the obvious conflict of interest of HMG’s arms procurer steering New Scientist, check out this new study from Scientists for Global Responsibility:

How fossil fuel and arms corporations finance professional engineering and science organisations

This report reveals a previously unrecognised pattern of financial links between the fossil fuel and arms industries on the one hand, and some of the UK’s leading professional engineering and science organisations on the other. The links revealed include funding and branding of school education programmes, sponsorship of prestige conferences and dinners, investments, major donations, and corporate membership. The professional organisations that received the most significant funding from these controversial industries were the Royal Academy of Engineering, EngineeringUK and the Energy Institute.

It shows that some of the most influential professional engineering and science organisations prominently and, at times, preferentially promoted the fossil fuel and arms sectors. This is despite these industries having serious ethical shortcomings, such as failing to take the necessary scale of action to reduce carbon emissions or continuing to export weapons that fuel conflict and human rights abuses.

That’d certainly help with trail building… trees make a hell of a lot of difference when it comes to vegetation management; it’s been quite a shock trying to maintain our local riding spot with all that unimpeded photosynthesis going on.

If you wanna know the environmental effects of e-cigs, Ken Clarke would be the chap to ask; remember picking up a letter to him from British American Tobacco many moons ago when I was a bike courier in that there big smoky city

Of course, Ken Clarke is also well versed in many of the other matters raised in this thread, but we’ll leave that for another day…

Yep, good on many fronts, but unfortunately, probably not good enough in isolation…

In many respects, trees do seem a good solution; in addition to reducing levels of CO2 and providing plenty of shade, I’d imagine they will also help reduce levels of water vapour (albeit not at 40,000 ft), though it’s wise to remain vigilant when it comes to PR spin…

If Each of Us Planted a Tree, Would It Slow Global Warming?

Ask a physicist: Just how much carbon could 7.5 billion new trees pull out of the atmosphere?

Agree with much of what you’ve said there; Brexit to me seems like a perfect exercise in distraction, via a divide and conquer strategy, albeit with consequences they may not have foreseen from the outset.

However…

No matter the flaws of America as a global power, having some sort of stable world order actually allows countries to get on with other things, like tackling climate change.

Given the militarized nature of that power, this is paradoxical

Well I never, so ET’s hoover bag is potent enough to freeze the planet!!

Tried reading the report, but Birger Schmitz is clearly very clever indeed, so it’s a bit hard to get your head around…

However, it’s backed up by core samples going back 4 million years

(Worth noting that that article is from the good old days of New Scientist, before it was taken over by TI Media, which also owns MBR (Mountain Bike Rider), Cycling Weekly, Marie Claire, Womans Own, TV Times etc etc)

Sir Bernard Gray is highly relevant to all of this, given his deep ties to the defence industry

The Committee has been asked to advice on an application from Sir Bernard Gray. He would like to take up a new role with the New Scientist as Executive Chairman.

Sir Bernard was Chief of Defence Material (CDM) in Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) between 3 January 2011 and 30 November 2015. His last day in Crown service was 31 December 2015. As CDM Sir Bernard ran the MoD’s procurement organisation responsible for the vast majority of spend on new equipment and supporting existing equipment.

Not forgetting of course:

Fact #1: The U.S. military creates more carbon emissions than most entire countries do.

In fact, it's the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world. (2/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

Fair point, NASA scientists agree with you for the most part so I ain’t gonna argue.

Certainly a factor that could do with more publicity…

A more likely scenario, Burkhardt says, is that levels of soot and contrail cirrus clouds will continue to rise. That’s because most aviation regulations and pollution-reduction plans fail to consider the climate impact from anything other than CO2 emissions. A United Nations scheme, for example, requires all signatory nations to keep their CO2 emissions under a certain level, and report them annually, but says nothing about the climate impact from contrails.

What does that have to do with the very serious issues of climate change and the impact of aviation and shipping?

Perhaps you’re angling to cause a distraction, because you find it hard to justify your lifestyle?

Hmmm….

Your proposals open up avenues I was never aware of… sounds like there may be potential there;

Would it help reset the balance where domestic flights are cheaper than trains?

…certainly seems a key factor when you mention the relative efficiency of cruise flight

Also, when it comes to alternative fuels, what would the implications be for the release of water vapour?

The primary contributor to the greenhouse effect is clouds and water vapour:

Planes are a very efficient way of water vapour getting a free ride up to extreme altitudes…

A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation.

It’s good joke 😄

Though of course, on top of the vast budgets (and huge carbon footprints) for official armed forces, there’s also a huge industry in private contractors (basically mercenaries) like:

Aegis Defence Services
Control Risks
Dyncorp
Erinsys
Defion
KBR
Booz Allen Hamilton
GK Sierra
Academi
G4S

etc etc

More often than not, they are tied to the oil, gas and mining industries, along with aviation, transportation and banking interests…

And which country has the most ties to this murky industry?

There’s any number of ways to fix the environment; there’s certainly plenty of spare funds floating about…

Fact #4: Just 11% of the Pentagon's current budget could fund enough wind+solar energy to power every single household in the U.S.

Imagine the impact of putting an 11% dent in the Pentagon's polluting budget and using it to give 128 million households clean energy forever. (5/8)

— Institute for Policy Studies (@IPS_DC) September 23, 2019

Well worth reading the whole thread, quite an eye opener!

However, in practical terms, how do you go about liberating those funds from the clenched fists of those rabid in their pursuit of wealth and power?

And how would you prevent those same issues under a service based economy?

Whilst a purely service based economy sounds like an interesting concept, I’d appreciate if you could explain it to me a bit more, to help me get my head around it;

What would be on the menu in restaurants?

You pay for someone to polish your car… what do they polish it with?

A service engineer is called out to fix a lift, which needs new parts… where do the parts come from?

Your missus goes to a Yoga Class, but fails to reach a zen state due to lack of incense, candles and essential oils, along with the hard floor where her Yoga mat isn’t…

etc etc

Given your clear expertise on these matters, perhaps you could help us find some solutions to the issues you’ve raised…

In all honesty, I don’t see it being a likely outcome…

It’s pretty clear the UN is riddled with corruption; you only have to look at the history of Karen Pierce (and Matthew Rycroft before her) to see that.

Then of course there’s the global tax avoidance industry, of which Britain is at the forefront, given the role of our head of state…

nowthen’s post at the top of the page is a pretty good illustration of the bigger picture.

Another tax probably isn’t going to be a vote winner; but I can’t imagine a great many votes are won on taxpayers money supporting wahabist extremism or bombing kids in far flung lands, but that’s not to say it doesn’t happen…

Hello there, can I help you flyboy?

Hmmm… the whole aid and essential supplies thing can often be misused…

You only have to look at the Tennesee mules shipped out to Afghanistan by US aid agencies under Larry Crandall in collaboration with the CIA to see that…

Or the way Live Aid funds were spent on weapons.

Ah fuggit, maybe the human race ain’t worth saving; shame about the planet mind…

Can you explain to me why the ship’s manifest is so essential in all of this?

You know where a ship last docked, you know it’s net tonnage; why do you need to know what it’s carrying?

As for efficiency, surely there’s enough info on a specific ship’s build data give an idea of general efficiency and thus emissions?

Say we took up your idea of banning bunker fuel; how would you go about it and what alternative fuels are there?

What are the costs and how much improvement could we expect in terms of emissions?

The funny thing is, goods and passengers are already transported the world over and it all works fairly well…

Much of this alleged complexity is being blown out of proportion;

Rather than tie mileage too much to the goods on board, surely it’d be better to apply it purely to the ship itself, so each time it docks, a tax is charged relating to the fuel used since the last time it docked.

when it comes to duty on items, that has nothing to do with the fuel charge; duty (or indeed tax relief) is already dealt with by customs.

Data is no biggie; airports and docks cope well enough as is and the journeys of planes and ships are easy enough for all to see already:

https://www.flightradar24.com

https://www.marinetraffic.com

The UN has it’s own army of Peacekeepers, not to mention Weapons Inspectors (the most senior non elected employee of HM’s government, Mark Sedwill, used to be a UN Weapons Inspector), so surely collecting tax would be easy enough, especially if it contributed to securing the future of the planet…

Ah, fair enough, so rather than a dynamic tonnage tax, just apply a banded multiplier tariff according to the ships net tonnage in addition to a flat mileage rate.

Arghhh! That’s some impressive calibration right there me hearties…

You’ve failed to declare 3 grains of sugar, straight to the brig

Surely there are checks on a ship’s displacement, to see if there’s any smuggling going on?

From that it’d be simple enough to have a flat rate per mile for all shipping, with an additional tariff applied depending on tonnage…

Ah, good old Katie Hopkins…

After A-levels she signed a 35-year contract with the intelligence corps, who sponsored her through an economics degree at Exeter University, where she spent her weekends with the Territorial Army – “really fun, lying around in forests with guns having a brilliant time” – before arriving at Sandhurst.

but no doubt, Twitter are cool with that…

Twitter executive for Middle East is British Army ‘psyops’ soldier

Head of editorial for MENA is part-time officer in the 77th Brigade, an ‘information warfare’ unit which has worked on ‘behavioural change’ projects in the region

Seems to me cookea’s basic concept is pretty sound, however, there’s clearly some elements that require a bit of refinement (unlike bunker fuel, eh chaps!!)

So trillions can be siphoned out of the system to offshore accounts, yet meanwhile, a tax (that’d inject money into the economy) to aid the transition from fossil fuels and reduce emissions (which would in turn impact the global transport of said fuels and reduce the incessant flow of disposable consumer goods that plunder resources, only to clog landfill and waterways) would crash the economy?

Crazy world, huh

How many folk have experienced similar failures and not lived to tell the tale…

🤔

Standard Boris;

wonder why he refuses interviews with Channel 4 News anyway…

“Why has your govt suppressed a report on the funding of terror groups?” @MichaelLCrick challenges Foreign Sec on relationship with Saudi. pic.twitter.com/iU4EqdauWL

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 6, 2017

So being a (polluting) physical commodity, rather than just numbers on a computer screen, it’d be harder for heads of state (and other global capitalists) to exploit offshore tax havens?

Course, it’d increase the running costs of superyachts n suchlike too…

Even if the EU had a rate, what stops Jersey, the IOM, Turkey, Morocco, Norway etc suddenly becoming very attractive places to refuel?

How does the fuel get there in the 1st place?

Take back sovereignty eh…

How does the stuff from China get here? (and everywhere else in the world)

Yep, no tax = indirect subsidy

you just have to accept that literally every import will cost more

So it’s basically Brexit with reduced emissions?

So essentially, what we currently have is a subsidy on global transport…

As regards food going up, what if you shifted the subsidy from the transport, to the food itself?

Being as transport shifts far more than just food around the only planet we have, surely that’d mean an increase in funds to speed the transition to renewables?

Well, if Greta Thunberg can get such immense international media coverage in such a short space of time, you’d imagine it’d be pretty easy to apply the pressure required to make it happen…

Can see there is potential for exploitation… however, though I’m not overly familiar with all the legal wrangling involved, surely there’s some means of ensuring a fairly level playing field internationally?

On the flipside, what positives could we expect?

Thing is though, planes carry far more than just passengers!

And as for ships…

They best hurry up, else it’ll be underwater before they’ve finished…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/25/extreme-sea-level-events-will-hit-once-a-year-by-2050

Still, as long as Amber Rudd and chums make a pretty penny out of it, it’ll all be worth it!!

When Energy Secretary Amber Rudd awarded Hinkley Point C contract to HSBC advised EDF & Kier. Both HSBC & Kier are clients of her brother's PR company. https://t.co/2jjYaiOdaX

— Mr Ethical (@nw_nicholas) January 20, 2018

Bet the PM’s weekly meetings with the Queen will be a riot from now on…