FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > How would you save the planet
How would you save the planet
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe should be in politics forum, but as Cop26 is very topical and also being discussed in the Lounge, then thought it might be interesting to ask…. If you were PM or World Leader for a day, what 3 policies would you put in place to take carbon emissions?" You first take the lead. What 3 would you put in place? Right away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A culling seems like a good start "Would we draw straws? Could we watch it on Netflix?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ?" That was a bit amateur hour though. 5m out of 8bn. Like emptying a bath with a teaspoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet" Mr was saying a very similar thing earlier tonight. It has happened throughout history, ice age, then it melts. We can maybe do a little to slow the process but to think we can totally change the course of nature, nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Use measures to reduce populations or prevent them getting larger. Stop over production of 'goods' that should lead to a reduction in consumption of needless items. GIVE the entire planet their NEEDS as a Human Right ..... Shelter, food and warmth .... provided. " What measures to reduce population or let them get larger? What do you suggest.. Bill gates is on. It as we text here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ?" All ready tested.. Billy Mates is doing his bit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet Mr was saying a very similar thing earlier tonight. It has happened throughout history, ice age, then it melts. We can maybe do a little to slow the process but to think we can totally change the course of nature, nope." It’s a nice story to support doing nothing , but not backed up by science. The science shows humans are having a huge impact on the planet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a starter: 1) legislate to control planned obsolescence, the lack of repairability and goods which are too cheap to repair. Far too much junk is made that only lasts a few years. It makes profit and cons people into thinking something is affordable. But it comes at a very high hidden cost. Goods would become a LOT more expensive, but we’d be forced to think much more carefully about a purchase. 2) hugely increase the taxes on flights to invest in R&D on alternative fast transport. 3) stop underpinning failed business models with government bailouts. Let capitalism work. Invest the same money in new tech ventures to drive innovation. Giving bankers billions to simply ramp up commodity, stock and non productive assets under the pretence that some things are too big to fail is a waste of time. It does not fix the problem and encourages moral hazard. Just ideas. Not sating they are ‘the answer’. Good thinking. Batman! I meant Cat-woman. Kaapow! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What measures to reduce population or let them get larger? What do you suggest.. Bill gates is on. It as we text here! " Personally I’d vote to use genetic engineering to resurrect the T-Rex. Let a few 1000 of them loose on each continent. top tip: don’t hide in the outside lavatory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say to people who don't have kids: you are no longer a taxpayer." How would that cut carbon emissions? Just curious, i’m sure there’s sound logic behind the plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Eradicating humanity" How would we know if it worked or not? Who’d have the job of posting I told you so on the forum to piss off the naysayers who thought it was a conspiracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet" I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Eradicating humanity How would we know if it worked or not? Who’d have the job of posting I told you so on the forum to piss off the naysayers who thought it was a conspiracy? " We wouldn't, and there wouldn't be anyone to read it anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet Mr was saying a very similar thing earlier tonight. It has happened throughout history, ice age, then it melts. We can maybe do a little to slow the process but to think we can totally change the course of nature, nope. It’s a nice story to support doing nothing , but not backed up by science. The science shows humans are having a huge impact on the planet. " it really isnt, check your facts before posting, people like you cause the panic we are seeing today, its always happened even before we were here, sure we have moved it on, but we arent that meaningfull in the great sceam of things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say to people who don't have kids: you are no longer a taxpayer." Why ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr" Both right both wrong. Weather is cyclical. Earth does heat and cool. Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. Lawrence Krauss , amongst others, does argue that we have 300 to 1000 years before our current economy is badly affected. He argues that scientists are ignored by government who don't follow science but cherry pick what they will put forward to populations. N.B. I am not arguing FOR the above.... I'm in the , ' I can no longer trust anything I read or hear' camp. 'Trust' as in what piece of news/claim do I take on board. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ?" Ooooh, edgy! And considering it undoubtedly came from one of the worst polluting countries… Oh gawd, I’ll upset some people with my comment. IT’S JUST AN OPINION | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ? Ooooh, edgy! And considering it undoubtedly came from one of the worst polluting countries… Oh gawd, I’ll upset some people with my comment. IT’S JUST AN OPINION" Hold on , Hold on ,......... you said undoubtedly so it must be a FACT..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ev cars " this in thier lifetime milage the same they polute more than fossil fuel cars, but they have short tearm benifits that suit the politicions, dont believe me look up the facts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr Both right both wrong. Weather is cyclical. Earth does heat and cool. Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. Lawrence Krauss , amongst others, does argue that we have 300 to 1000 years before our current economy is badly affected. He argues that scientists are ignored by government who don't follow science but cherry pick what they will put forward to populations. N.B. I am not arguing FOR the above.... I'm in the , ' I can no longer trust anything I read or hear' camp. 'Trust' as in what piece of news/claim do I take on board. " I haven't said weather isn't cyclical. We are actually in an ice age at the moment. The earth (and life on it) has survived being warmer and being frozen over. The output of the sun has changed dramatically. The earth has had an atmosphere with no oxygen, its had an one crammed full of all the carbon dioxide we're now releasing by burning the fuels that stored it away. No sensible person denies that there has been change - or that there will be more to come. That isn't the point. The point is whether we are seeing change now that is being caused by human activity and how fast this is occurring. The fact of past changes doesn't mean that we aren't causing one now. Like I said, the scientific community are pretty much unanimous that we are and frankly I'll trust that over random strangers. Can science be wrong? Sure it can. Have all the scientists in the world somehow missed the ideas to be found in YouTube? Seems unlikely. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ev cars this in thier lifetime milage the same they polute more than fossil fuel cars, but they have short tearm benifits that suit the politicions, dont believe me look up the facts" Hey, they can go very very fast.!!! So no need to ban then. Just don’t hype them up to be something they are (currently) not. But all technologies need a transition and maturity phase. So EV has to start somewhere. So no need to ban them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ev cars this in thier lifetime milage the same they polute more than fossil fuel cars, but they have short tearm benifits that suit the politicions, dont believe me look up the facts Hey, they can go very very fast.!!! So no need to ban then. Just don’t hype them up to be something they are (currently) not. But all technologies need a transition and maturity phase. So EV has to start somewhere. So no need to ban them. " It’s not old teach though lithium battery are been around from the 80s This is the government take back handers off big car companies Because thay to much petrol cars they new car sales are going down Simple fix ban petrol cars Say it’s for environmental reasons While hide the fact That Cobalt Nickel and lithium mine is very dirty and toxic to the environment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ev cars this in thier lifetime milage the same they polute more than fossil fuel cars, but they have short tearm benifits that suit the politicions, dont believe me look up the facts" I don't believe you and have looked up the facts - by that I mean read studies that set out method, results and conclusions, that acknowledge shortcomings and areas of uncertainty and (critically) announced potential conflicts of interest. Obviously its possible to find stuff that disagrees, and with confirmation bias in full swing its possible to give this higher credence than it deserves but that doesn't change the facts. An EV run on electricity from renewable sources has a lower lifetime carbon footprint than an ICE car. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head but run on electricity from a mix of sources that isn't necessarily true, depending on the exact mix and the ICE car it is compared to. An efficient ICE car run in a country with for example 80% electric from fossil fuels may indeed have a lower footprint - the UK is approaching half its electric from renewables. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr Both right both wrong. Weather is cyclical. Earth does heat and cool. Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. Lawrence Krauss , amongst others, does argue that we have 300 to 1000 years before our current economy is badly affected. He argues that scientists are ignored by government who don't follow science but cherry pick what they will put forward to populations. N.B. I am not arguing FOR the above.... I'm in the , ' I can no longer trust anything I read or hear' camp. 'Trust' as in what piece of news/claim do I take on board. I haven't said weather isn't cyclical. We are actually in an ice age at the moment. The earth (and life on it) has survived being warmer and being frozen over. The output of the sun has changed dramatically. The earth has had an atmosphere with no oxygen, its had an one crammed full of all the carbon dioxide we're now releasing by burning the fuels that stored it away. No sensible person denies that there has been change - or that there will be more to come. That isn't the point. The point is whether we are seeing change now that is being caused by human activity and how fast this is occurring. The fact of past changes doesn't mean that we aren't causing one now. Like I said, the scientific community are pretty much unanimous that we are and frankly I'll trust that over random strangers. Can science be wrong? Sure it can. Have all the scientists in the world somehow missed the ideas to be found in YouTube? Seems unlikely. Mr" ME: Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. YOU: The point is whether we are seeing change now that is being caused by human activity and how fast this is occurring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr Both right both wrong. Weather is cyclical. Earth does heat and cool. Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. Lawrence Krauss , amongst others, does argue that we have 300 to 1000 years before our current economy is badly affected. He argues that scientists are ignored by government who don't follow science but cherry pick what they will put forward to populations. N.B. I am not arguing FOR the above.... I'm in the , ' I can no longer trust anything I read or hear' camp. 'Trust' as in what piece of news/claim do I take on board. I haven't said weather isn't cyclical. We are actually in an ice age at the moment. The earth (and life on it) has survived being warmer and being frozen over. The output of the sun has changed dramatically. The earth has had an atmosphere with no oxygen, its had an one crammed full of all the carbon dioxide we're now releasing by burning the fuels that stored it away. No sensible person denies that there has been change - or that there will be more to come. That isn't the point. The point is whether we are seeing change now that is being caused by human activity and how fast this is occurring. The fact of past changes doesn't mean that we aren't causing one now. Like I said, the scientific community are pretty much unanimous that we are and frankly I'll trust that over random strangers. Can science be wrong? Sure it can. Have all the scientists in the world somehow missed the ideas to be found in YouTube? Seems unlikely. Mr ME: Climate change is not new but is now happening more quickly. Alarmingly so. YOU: The point is whether we are seeing change now that is being caused by human activity and how fast this is occurring. " ME humans are cuasing climate change YOU "you are both wrong" Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say to people who don't have kids: you are no longer a taxpayer. How would that cut carbon emissions? Just curious, i’m sure there’s sound logic behind the plan "Yes there is. every child needs to be watered, fed, clothed, housed, bought toys, sent on holiday, made to go to school work and start of the whole rotten cycle all over again. all of the above activities come witha an environmental cost, as well as social and financial. i learnt this in CSE Geograpy. the ratio of American kids to Indian kids in the rural areas was about 130:1, when it came to resorces and costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say to people who don't have kids: you are no longer a taxpayer. How would that cut carbon emissions? Just curious, i’m sure there’s sound logic behind the plan
Yes there is. every child needs to be watered, fed, clothed, housed, bought toys, sent on holiday, made to go to school work and start of the whole rotten cycle all over again. all of the above activities come witha an environmental cost, as well as social and financial.
i learnt this in CSE Geograpy. the ratio of American kids to Indian kids in the rural areas was about 130:1, when it came to resorces and costs."Don’t disagree with the child carbon impact. It was the wording of the original statement that threw me. So you’re advocating an incentive for the future rather than as a reward for the past. So only applicable to those who elect not to have children after the policy is announced? That might have some milage. I think that would be fair. So long as they also don’t get to use any public services or expect a state pension .
Or we could go even further and scrap social care and simply reply on our kids to look after us
Fk it. Why not scrap all tax altogether and make everything PAYG, and those that can’t pay… send them to the grinder?
Too extreme?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best thing would b if all humans were destroyed and the planet left to the animals! Might stand a chance then as its us lot that are destroying it x" I have a lot of sympathy for this idea but I question it being the "best thing" The earth will one day be a scorched molten ball, either swallowed by an expanding sun or clinging on to an orbit just far enough out to be stable. Long before then all life will be extinguished. The best chance for life to survive this is for a lifeform from earth to have discovered a means of travel to other planets. It is quite possible that another species could evolve to fulfil this role in the absence of humans but if I was to bet on it I'd put my money with humans (or at least their decendents) being the best chance of earth life surviving into the distant future. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No cars No hairspray " That's the B52's comeback tour ruined..Hiiiiit and ruuuun! Love shack. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No cars No hairspray That's the B52's comeback tour ruined..Hiiiiit and ruuuun! Love shack." They are retired | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ? Ooooh, edgy! And considering it undoubtedly came from one of the worst polluting countries… Oh gawd, I’ll upset some people with my comment. IT’S JUST AN OPINION Hold on , Hold on ,......... you said undoubtedly so it must be a FACT..... " Undoubtedly in my opinion  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"End capitalism and the associated greed! " So so true, Money & profit before anything else. Governments don't rule this planet, supersize conglomerate enterprises do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1/ only 1 child per family in 1 hundred years the world population would be reduced by 10% 2/ hydrogen powered cars the technology is there but the patents for them were bought up by the oil companies 3/ build the power plant designed by tesla he wanted to give all people free electric but none of these will ever happen coz its all about the huge tax revenues all governments cream off the general public " Hydrogen for cars has a massive hurdle to overcome in terms of distribution and storage. It makes EV Infrastructure ‘look simple’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ban ev cars this in thier lifetime milage the same they polute more than fossil fuel cars, but they have short tearm benifits that suit the politicions, dont believe me look up the facts I don't believe you and have looked up the facts - by that I mean read studies that set out method, results and conclusions, that acknowledge shortcomings and areas of uncertainty and (critically) announced potential conflicts of interest. Obviously its possible to find stuff that disagrees, and with confirmation bias in full swing its possible to give this higher credence than it deserves but that doesn't change the facts. An EV run on electricity from renewable sources has a lower lifetime carbon footprint than an ICE car. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head but run on electricity from a mix of sources that isn't necessarily true, depending on the exact mix and the ICE car it is compared to. An efficient ICE car run in a country with for example 80% electric from fossil fuels may indeed have a lower footprint - the UK is approaching half its electric from renewables. Mr" i ment to quote this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet I love comments like these. Somewhere between 80 and 100% of scientists agree we are causing the planet to warm. The variation in the numbers who agree stems from variations in what criteria is used to assess agreement and which particular scientists are being asked (those who specialise in climate and weather give the highest results). However, even if we take the lowest figure at 80% that means that by far and away the majority of people who have actual expertise in understanding how data is gathered, assessed and presented all agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Then you get some person on the internet whose scientific training stopped at GCSE level explaining why these scientists are all wrong and have misread the data.... Mr" This 
Plus it was originally raised in 1856 by Eunice Foote, a woman who no man listened to & yes most rulers are men, (not that the women in gov today are doing amazing, some are deplorable, I'd hate to have them as a mum)
Again in 1861 by John Tyndall
1886 - Svante Arrhenius predicted the changes we see today caused by warming from fossil fuel uses
Nils ekholm - 1901
Guy callander - 1937
1965 - group of scientists took it to US president Lyndon Johnson
& Many times since has it been explicitly stated.
Enough, the only reason nothing has been done is because of monetary greed.
What we need is to restore lands & fast. Biodiverse forests/landscapes (native to area obv) draw carbon down & exhale oxygen they also keep the top soil from sliding keeping nutrients, provide door & shelter for many.
Made to break products should be banned as should be many useless things like balloons, we just don't have the resources to waste on petty indulgences nor do we need more waste, nor are they fundamental to life in any form.
Skilled repairs created jobs & can be provided locally.
Public transport needs to become just that & managed by those who don't seem bonuses nor power but to provide service as they should. Networks need expanded (not through ancient woodlands!!) Made cheaper & greener.
I have many more I'll stop at 3
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1/ only 1 child per family in 1 hundred years the world population would be reduced by 10% 2/ hydrogen powered cars the technology is there but the patents for them were bought up by the oil companies 3/ build the power plant designed by tesla he wanted to give all people free electric but none of these will ever happen coz its all about the huge tax revenues all governments cream off the general public " China tried that & failed miserably as you can see from their exploding population & they favoured boys over girls so there is gender imbalance also. The tech was there for water powered cars - guy mysteriously died  we do have feet so we do always have a mode of transport gifted to the vast majority of us.
The Tesla idea is rumoured to have caused a drastic lighting type effect in Russia somewhere...no idea how true it is
Last part of course is true unless we the consumers force it by refusing to buy it, no business can operate with no customers...use that power it's the strongest you'll have unless you wanna revolt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle!" What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle! What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. " I may be older than you. I remember when consumer goods, such as cars, lasted far less time than they do now. Consumers hand success to compani that make good quality products that will run at low cost and will last. Let's allow such companies to keep more of their profits. That way they'll keep innovating and making better products | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle! What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. " Not sure why you think newer cars are programed to break? You only have to read a Parkers guide to see how models improve, known faults get engineered out over the design history etc. Modern engines will happily run to 1/4 million miles and I have no idea what you drive that has £1500 sensors - that sounds like excessive labour charge to me. Many "expensive" goods last far longer than they used to. I am going to jinx myself now but I can't remember the last time I had to play around fixing a washing machine for example. There seems to be a widely held belief that things are designed to break and not be fixed but that isn't how the design process works. Every design is a balancing act between cost and lifespan. Cost includes the amount of material used and type of manufacturing process. Pressed parts and spot welds are far cheaper and easier to make than bolt together frames. The reason you can't get your hoover apart and replace the parts isn't because they want you to buy a new one, its because you won't pay over the market price and what you're prepared to pay gets an item that will last a given time. White goods and household electrical appliances have risen in price way below the rate of inflation despite continual improvements in function and durability this is due to continually shaving back the cost of manufacture, reducing to a minimum the materials used, the amount of time it takes to make, the number of processes it goes through. Parts will be assembled on test rigs and put through thousands, perhaps millions of cycles to ensure they have an appropriate lifespan with appropriate being determined by the cost the market will accept. I agree we should legislate for repairable items but that *will* cause prices to go up. This leads to a much bigger point. A huge amount of waste is due to consumer demand for cheap goods. We ship products around the globe because we don't want to pay the price of local labour and environmental laws, we don't want our new TV to cost more to cover sick pay, maternity pay and pensions so we buy it from a country where that's not an issue. We don't want to pay for our food to be organically grown/raised so we buy cheap from farms that intensively work their land and ignore the oncoming soil crises, the nitrogen pollution and the cruelty of raising chickens crammed together in air conditioned sheds. The truth is, if we want a sustainable future moaning about the government or big businesses isn't going to change a lot. We need to put our momey where our mouth is and pay for what we want. If the demand is there the supply will follow. At the moment the demand is for cheap imported products and then we can blame the likes of China for their awful carbon footprint and conveniently ignore our part in causing it. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1/ only 1 child per family in 1 hundred years the world population would be reduced by 10% 2/ hydrogen powered cars the technology is there but the patents for them were bought up by the oil companies 3/ build the power plant designed by tesla he wanted to give all people free electric but none of these will ever happen coz its all about the huge tax revenues all governments cream off the general public China tried that & failed miserably as you can see from their exploding population & they favoured boys over girls so there is gender imbalance also. The tech was there for water powered cars - guy mysteriously died we do have feet so we do always have a mode of transport gifted to the vast majority of us.
The Tesla idea is rumoured to have caused a drastic lighting type effect in Russia somewhere...no idea how true it is
Last part of course is true unless we the consumers force it by refusing to buy it, no business can operate with no customers...use that power it's the strongest you'll have unless you wanna revolt. "someone has been reding too much ben elton | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Facts The planet isn’t dying but it’s changing. Unfavourably towards us and other species. Don’t heap the blame on the mass populations of the poor. It’s richer peoples driving up CO2. A future hot planet will benefit cockroaches among other creatures. Harsh measures to reduce CO2 will damage capitalism and cause other problems. Solution? You tell me! " Exactly! Mankind is gonna look awfully fackin' stupid saving an environment from an ever increasing red giant sun. I hope, by then, we have found a way off this rock, but until then....I am NOT going to be blamed or feel guilty for a planet that has already been calculated to be consumed. Pay it backward...like a few million or billion years. I am here for a good time,not a long time. Quit farkin' up my happy moments with yer bullshart! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I genuinely think we’re past the point of deliberation now. The world governments have no interest In cop26 apart from a media opportunity. Choice needs to be taken away from the masses, we need a full societal and technological reset / blackout. " Is it something in the water over there that causes you folks to be SO DAMNED tyrannical and SO damned swinging at the same time? Such a small area of the planet yet so controlling of other peoples actions yet willing to fuck one another. Is it the oppression? The island life? This YankMe needs to know. You all seem to be banging one another but could make an entire continent a fucking prison at the drop of a hat. Wtf?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I genuinely think we’re past the point of deliberation now. The world governments have no interest In cop26 apart from a media opportunity. Choice needs to be taken away from the masses, we need a full societal and technological reset / blackout. Is it something in the water over there that causes you folks to be SO DAMNED tyrannical and SO damned swinging at the same time? Such a small area of the planet yet so controlling of other peoples actions yet willing to fuck one another. Is it the oppression? The island life? This YankMe needs to know. You all seem to be banging one another but could make an entire continent a fucking prison at the drop of a hat. Wtf?! " Not sure what you are actually trying to say? Everyone fucks and swings in adult life? You’ll find evidence of swinging on a swinging site for sure. You’ll find opinions too in the forum. Quite a wide range with little to suggest a leaning towards a particular viewpoint. The U.K. doesn’t have the strength or desire to contain the US, China, Russia or India or even France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I genuinely think we’re past the point of deliberation now. The world governments have no interest In cop26 apart from a media opportunity. Choice needs to be taken away from the masses, we need a full societal and technological reset / blackout. Is it something in the water over there that causes you folks to be SO DAMNED tyrannical and SO damned swinging at the same time? Such a small area of the planet yet so controlling of other peoples actions yet willing to fuck one another. Is it the oppression? The island life? This YankMe needs to know. You all seem to be banging one another but could make an entire continent a fucking prison at the drop of a hat. Wtf?! Not sure what you are actually trying to say? Everyone fucks and swings in adult life? You’ll find evidence of swinging on a swinging site for sure. You’ll find opinions too in the forum. Quite a wide range with little to suggest a leaning towards a particular viewpoint. The U.K. doesn’t have the strength or desire to contain the US, China, Russia or India or even France. You God Damned KNOW what I am conveying. Don't pretend like you aren't on the same page as I. Of course the U.K. doesn't have their historical strength. But your comment smacked of tyranny and colonialism. No need to bring up other nations. "Choice needs to be taken away from the masses" is all I needed to read. Unreal! -Happy American...well..not until a New Lee Harvey Oswald bares his rifle muzzle anyway. " You're arguing with the wrong guy, he didn't say about choice being b taken from the masses someone else did. To answer your question about what's wrong with us over here, nothing. It may have escaped your attention that people are individuals. Just because some bloke on a forum spouts their ideas about a societal reset that doesn't make them representative of an entire nation anymore than I believe your attitude is representative of all Americans. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ? That was a bit amateur hour though. 5m out of 8bn. Like emptying a bath with a teaspoon. " This is just one phase of the plan . We have had sars , swine flu and bird flu to warm us up and get used to virus being the norm . Each virus takes out more humans . Over 5 million with covid so far . Next one they release will be 20 million and so on until they have got us at an acceptable sustainable level and then few decades release another one to keep us at a sustainable level . I know this is fact because a guy down the pub told me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ? That was a bit amateur hour though. 5m out of 8bn. Like emptying a bath with a teaspoon. This is just one phase of the plan . We have had sars , swine flu and bird flu to warm us up and get used to virus being the norm . Each virus takes out more humans . Over 5 million with covid so far . Next one they release will be 20 million and so on until they have got us at an acceptable sustainable level and then few decades release another one to keep us at a sustainable level . I know this is fact because a guy down the pub told me " Was it Dave ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s a nice story to support doing nothing , but not backed up by science. The science shows humans are having a huge impact on the planet. " Humans have an impact on the planet, yes, but that does not detract from the basic fact that the earth is still coming out of the last ice age, (proven science). Any action humans take is very minor to the effect of natural climate change, which has happened since the planet was created and will exist until it self destructs. That is not to say we should not have regard to our actions such as into account our carbon footprint, but this includes the full footprint not just the ongoing carbon release when the car or wind turbine has been manufactured. The present green policies are simply ineffective window dressing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get rid of politicians " And replace them with what? How do new laws get passed? How do we get a say in how the country is run? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"planned obsolescence" I hate this and it’s an unfortunate mainstay of capitalism. Communism doesn’t work either, because people are inherently lazy and are motivated by greed. We need a fundamental rethink of how we run things. We’re working to make those at the top richer, not make things better. That doesn’t work for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"planned obsolescence I hate this and it’s an unfortunate mainstay of capitalism. Communism doesn’t work either, because people are inherently lazy and are motivated by greed. We need a fundamental rethink of how we run things. We’re working to make those at the top richer, not make things better. That doesn’t work for me. " So capitalism is shit, so is communism and you don’t have any other suggestion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So capitalism is shit, so is communism and you don’t have any other suggestion. " Do you? I’m not Adam Smith or Karl Marx. I can see things aren’t working, I think that’s obvious, but you’d think between 7+ billion of us somebody would have a better idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So capitalism is shit, so is communism and you don’t have any other suggestion. Do you? I’m not Adam Smith or Karl Marx. I can see things aren’t working, I think that’s obvious, but you’d think between 7+ billion of us somebody would have a better idea. " That's why we have t.v. , the internet , football and sex. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them." Would seem sensible. Where are most of the cheap plastic items and those with less than 10 year life cycle made and shipped from? Can we make a personal choice to ban them from our lives today.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them." Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them. Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed." I wonder where all the trees that people are paying for to be planted, so that they assuage the 5 seconds they ponder about the environment before jumping off on a flight to Paris and pay extra for their flight to be "carbon neutral" are being planted? And I wonder how many years it takes for the tiny sapling (they've just paid to be planted in the imaginary forest) to be effective? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them. Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed. I wonder where all the trees that people are paying for to be planted, so that they assuage the 5 seconds they ponder about the environment before jumping off on a flight to Paris and pay extra for their flight to be "carbon neutral" are being planted? And I wonder how many years it takes for the tiny sapling (they've just paid to be planted in the imaginary forest) to be effective? " Maybe look it up? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet" We know the natural cycles but have the evidence of the man made global heating, that you seem to have missed  . There's no uncertainty about it whatsoever, from all evidence.
I'd restrict oil production much more strictly than currently planned. It would push the greater adoption of alternative energy measures and product development of all types.
I'd ensure the focus is 99% on the businesses that are the key contributors to the causes of global heating. Controlling how and what is produced and shipped is essential. The public consumers will then be limited and guided by the alternative product and service offerings available. Obviously oil use reduction and elimination must be part of a new business environment.
Growth should be about the mitigations measures and trees planted, instead of endless consumer spending that's depleting the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Create a virus that could wipe out a few million plus humans and call it covid ?" Good idea, I know some Americans who like to finance that sort of thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them. Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed." Curtailing personal air travel does not need widespread support. It just needs implementation. Some might kick up a fuss - but unless you buy a private jet there’s not a lot that can be done. Pricing could also act as a break. Add at least a 1 in front of ALL current air fares. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them. Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed. Curtailing personal air travel does not need widespread support. It just needs implementation. Some might kick up a fuss - but unless you buy a private jet there’s not a lot that can be done. Pricing could also act as a break. Add at least a 1 in front of ALL current air fares. " Yes it does need widespread support. A government would need to be elected with this policy in their manifesto. And if a party pulled that one out of nowhere midterm, they would be slaughtered at the next election and the move reversed. It’s pure fantasy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Outright ban items that break or don't last 10 years or more, and/or items that cannot be repaired at reasonable cost. Stop manufacturers designing products with built-in redundancy or a life span (cellphone batteries). Also, outright ban pointless plastic items like party streamers, or make them ridiculously expensive. Seriously, do we need them? Not to mention they also often come in plastic packaging. Set limits on ait travel for non business use. Also be very strict on what classes as a 'business'. Sick of stupid OnlyFans models flying abroad 'for work'. Also, ensure that the wealthy, contribute a significant amount and that all rules that apply to us, apply to them. Arbitrary limits on personal travel don’t feel right. One of xr’s founders wants air travel banned completely. Another xr proposal was that people should be allowed one return flight every 2 years. These ideas are clearly bollocks and will never gain widespread support. Business air travel should reduce massively though. Working in lockdown has proved that the vast majority of business travel is not needed. Curtailing personal air travel does not need widespread support. It just needs implementation. Some might kick up a fuss - but unless you buy a private jet there’s not a lot that can be done. Pricing could also act as a break. Add at least a 1 in front of ALL current air fares. Yes it does need widespread support. A government would need to be elected with this policy in their manifesto. And if a party pulled that one out of nowhere midterm, they would be slaughtered at the next election and the move reversed. It’s pure fantasy " Surely a political party delivering on a manifesto is itself the thing of fantasy. Besides EU, China and US could agree to do it via an UN resolution. Not much UK could do about that. Unlikely. But bot impossible either. These are unprecedented times. I’d not count on the usual democratic mechanisms functioning precisely as they have in the past going forward. After all if everything has to be ‘popular’ then the masses will (quite likely) continue to be selfish and expect to fly for £29 return. Which is never going to be sustainable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap "Who decides the 1/2 that go? Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts. "Care to explain the hockey stick lies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?"I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers? "You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?"It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University. Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201"Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then? Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?"Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?
Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century. "Why the need for all the lies then? A strong truth NEVER needs surrounding by a phalanx of lies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?
Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century.
Why the need for all the lies then?
A strong truth NEVER needs surrounding by a phalanx of lies"It's common in data reporting to omit small amounts of data that would appear to be anomalous. However, as I did not work on the original pieces of work, I cannot speculate further. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?
Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century.
Why the need for all the lies then?
A strong truth NEVER needs surrounding by a phalanx of lies
It's common in data reporting to omit small amounts of data that would appear to be anomalous. However, as I did not work on the original pieces of work, I cannot speculate further. "Why the missing emails? You do accept that it cannot be shown to children without a warning about it not being true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?
Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century. "Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where such articles weren't hidden behind pay walls while youtube is full of free lies. Not sure how you get the pdf but it looks like you either need c to be signed in as a member or prepared to pay. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanos snap
Who decides the 1/2 that go?
Might I suggest Brexit voters and climate sceptics as they seem to know far more than the experts.
Care to explain the hockey stick lies?
I recall Thanos had a fancy glove with some jewels. And also a sword. Maybe the rumour he played hockey was spread by the Avangers?
You do know that the hockey stick nonsense has been found to be nonsense in court?
It has been found to be accurate via more recent scientific investigation. Here is a citation, you can acquire the PDF via link to Princeton University.
Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", Science, 339 (6124): 1198–1201
Why the 'hide the decline' stuff then?
Why is it forbidden to be shown in schools without a warning that it isn't true?
Have a look at the paper above and you'll see that the declines in the earlier Holocene periods have been taken into account and we are still on course, at current emission rates, to exceed the Holocene maximum temp by the end of the century.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where such articles weren't hidden behind pay walls while youtube is full of free lies.
Not sure how you get the pdf but it looks like you either need c to be signed in as a member or prepared to pay.
Mr"I found a link to the PDF via Princeton University. I located the article on the Semantic Scholar website and then there is a down menu for the PDF. One of the options is Princeton University. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No cars No hairspray That's the B52's comeback tour ruined..Hiiiiit and ruuuun! Love shack. They are retired " The planes never will be retired. They don't build planes like those any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would say to people who don't have kids: you are no longer a taxpayer. Why ? " Married couples get a different tax allowance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where such articles weren't hidden behind pay walls while youtube is full of free lies. Not sure how you get the pdf but it looks like you either need c to be signed in as a member or prepared to pay. Mr" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan-Mix/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years/links/5602d16c08aeaf867fb8356f/A-Reconstruction-of-Regional-and-Global-Temperature-for-the-Past-11-300-Years.pdf?origin=publication_detail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe start by limiting the number of feet on the planet and then reducing the size of our individual carbon footprint does not have to shrink back to our consumption level of the dark ages! Fed up of people saying eat less meat and then feeding 6 kids on Tofu… fucktards!" Does it count if you are on the planet but keep your feet off it most of the time? Disabled people shall inherit the Earth! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. Worldwide adaption of renewable energy. Is plentiful in varied ways. Not confined to geopolitical areas it not only has the benefit of stopping pollution it also halts resource wars, over throw of governments, supporting hideous dictatorships & the terrorist blow back. 2. End tax avoidance by the richest on earth to pay for restructuring of our society & infrastructure investment for a real green revolution 3. Free education for all." Noble quests, but the question (x3) is how? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where such articles weren't hidden behind pay walls while youtube is full of free lies. Not sure how you get the pdf but it looks like you either need c to be signed in as a member or prepared to pay. Mr https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan-Mix/publication/235885717_A_Reconstruction_of_Regional_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Past_11300_Years/links/5602d16c08aeaf867fb8356f/A-Reconstruction-of-Regional-and-Global-Temperature-for-the-Past-11-300-Years.pdf?origin=publication_detail" Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Relax everyone. EU 'president' Ursula Von Der Leyen is on the job as guest speaker at the global warming/climate change/emergency/crisis/catastrophe in Glasgow today. Fear not! The unelected and superannuated Eurocrat has taken private jets on 18 of her 34 'official visits'. She has taken them for trips as short as 35 miles and for the 30-minute trip between Brussels and Strasbourg. Private jets give off 20 times as many emissions per passenger bthan commercial jetliners. One rule for these wasters, another rule for the rest of us" Yeah but she is quite attractive I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Control population is a first we can’t sustain the growth (how I don’t know) China tried they failed " No they didn't fail. Their population is projected to fall ~40% over the next 80 years. That's really the only sensible solution, brutal though it is. The rest is just theatre. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it OK for a human too eat grass? "...is this some new fetish?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet" Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it OK for a human too eat grass? "You’re supposed to smoke it. But fill your boots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"population decrease main one, no one can have more than two children. and other is pressure to be put on main polluters by cutting off there trade until they are a low emission country." Is that per couple or per person? If per person, it still represents population growth if you consider 1 parent generates 2 offspring and that continues approx every 20-30yrs (probably more frequently on a global average scale). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet Well said" Nowhere near as self-centered as actually believing you know more about something than those who have actual qualifications in the subject. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it OK for a human too eat grass?
You’re supposed to smoke it. But fill your boots. "Smoking it is more useful but to answer the question, no, grass is very hard to digest. Cows have several stomachs and puke up partially digested grass, chew it a bit and then swallow it until the next stomach. Rabbits digest it once, then eat their poo to digest it a second time. Getting nutrients out of grass isn't easy - much easier to let another animal do b it for you then eat the animal. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet Well said Nowhere near as self-centered as actually believing you know more about something than those who have actual qualifications in the subject. Mr" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Control population is a first we can’t sustain the growth (how I don’t know) China tried they failed No they didn't fail. Their population is projected to fall ~40% over the next 80 years. That's really the only sensible solution, brutal though it is. The rest is just theatre. " I didn’t know that I do know they tried through 1 child got their education etc paid for second child all payments stopped, But it didn’t stop the birth rate like they thought it would | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Control population is a first we can’t sustain the growth (how I don’t know) China tried they failed No they didn't fail. Their population is projected to fall ~40% over the next 80 years. That's really the only sensible solution, brutal though it is. The rest is just theatre. I didn’t know that I do know they tried through 1 child got their education etc paid for second child all payments stopped, But it didn’t stop the birth rate like they thought it would " It did though. I have no idea where you are getting this information. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle! What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. Not sure why you think newer cars are programed to break? You only have to read a Parkers guide to see how models improve, known faults get engineered out over the design history etc. Modern engines will happily run to 1/4 million miles and I have no idea what you drive that has £1500 sensors - that sounds like excessive labour charge to me. Many "expensive" goods last far longer than they used to. I am going to jinx myself now but I can't remember the last time I had to play around fixing a washing machine for example. There seems to be a widely held belief that things are designed to break and not be fixed but that isn't how the design process works. Every design is a balancing act between cost and lifespan. Cost includes the amount of material used and type of manufacturing process. Pressed parts and spot welds are far cheaper and easier to make than bolt together frames. The reason you can't get your hoover apart and replace the parts isn't because they want you to buy a new one, its because you won't pay over the market price and what you're prepared to pay gets an item that will last a given time. White goods and household electrical appliances have risen in price way below the rate of inflation despite continual improvements in function and durability this is due to continually shaving back the cost of manufacture, reducing to a minimum the materials used, the amount of time it takes to make, the number of processes it goes through. Parts will be assembled on test rigs and put through thousands, perhaps millions of cycles to ensure they have an appropriate lifespan with appropriate being determined by the cost the market will accept. I agree we should legislate for repairable items but that *will* cause prices to go up. This leads to a much bigger point. A huge amount of waste is due to consumer demand for cheap goods. We ship products around the globe because we don't want to pay the price of local labour and environmental laws, we don't want our new TV to cost more to cover sick pay, maternity pay and pensions so we buy it from a country where that's not an issue. We don't want to pay for our food to be organically grown/raised so we buy cheap from farms that intensively work their land and ignore the oncoming soil crises, the nitrogen pollution and the cruelty of raising chickens crammed together in air conditioned sheds. The truth is, if we want a sustainable future moaning about the government or big businesses isn't going to change a lot. We need to put our momey where our mouth is and pay for what we want. If the demand is there the supply will follow. At the moment the demand is for cheap imported products and then we can blame the likes of China for their awful carbon footprint and conveniently ignore our part in causing it. Mr" Nonsense, I have 25+ year old cars still in working order, how do I know they are designed to break..I'm a mechanic & fabricator I know the trade & folk in it, been doing so for 16 years or so. I know how much labour & issues these sensors, crumple zones & like of make it harder to repair as well as manufacturers changing bolts heads to a patented design meaning only main stealers can fix those vehicles & consumers to pay higher prices, main stealers who charge almost 100ph labour btw, standard is 45ph & make it increasingly difficult for anyone to DIY repairs due to tools & complexity like having to remove a whole front end for a light bulb! Crumple zones that write off the whole vehicle etc. The reason you never need to fix the washing machine is because you just buy a new one & don't seek to repair. And as a management accountant I can tell you otherwise, the durability is always limited because they want you to buy again & again, if a company doesn't have returning customers it isn't classed as business, repairs make less profit so they are not interested in that & the waste & raw material consumption in continuing growth be damned. I agree with the consumer power & I do use mine as wisely as I can. The cobblers look at me strange when I get a pair of £30 shoes re-heeled @ £10 for instance & ask why, get told because they only need repaired, they aren't beyond repair. I will make a part or have it made/find alternative if I can't buy it, so I am true to what I speak. My TV & tech isnt 'smart' or hd & had them for years, I don't replace stuff for the latest trend or tech when it still serves it purpose fully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle! What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. Not sure why you think newer cars are programed to break? You only have to read a Parkers guide to see how models improve, known faults get engineered out over the design history etc. Modern engines will happily run to 1/4 million miles and I have no idea what you drive that has £1500 sensors - that sounds like excessive labour charge to me. Many "expensive" goods last far longer than they used to. I am going to jinx myself now but I can't remember the last time I had to play around fixing a washing machine for example. There seems to be a widely held belief that things are designed to break and not be fixed but that isn't how the design process works. Every design is a balancing act between cost and lifespan. Cost includes the amount of material used and type of manufacturing process. Pressed parts and spot welds are far cheaper and easier to make than bolt together frames. The reason you can't get your hoover apart and replace the parts isn't because they want you to buy a new one, its because you won't pay over the market price and what you're prepared to pay gets an item that will last a given time. White goods and household electrical appliances have risen in price way below the rate of inflation despite continual improvements in function and durability this is due to continually shaving back the cost of manufacture, reducing to a minimum the materials used, the amount of time it takes to make, the number of processes it goes through. Parts will be assembled on test rigs and put through thousands, perhaps millions of cycles to ensure they have an appropriate lifespan with appropriate being determined by the cost the market will accept. I agree we should legislate for repairable items but that *will* cause prices to go up. This leads to a much bigger point. A huge amount of waste is due to consumer demand for cheap goods. We ship products around the globe because we don't want to pay the price of local labour and environmental laws, we don't want our new TV to cost more to cover sick pay, maternity pay and pensions so we buy it from a country where that's not an issue. We don't want to pay for our food to be organically grown/raised so we buy cheap from farms that intensively work their land and ignore the oncoming soil crises, the nitrogen pollution and the cruelty of raising chickens crammed together in air conditioned sheds. The truth is, if we want a sustainable future moaning about the government or big businesses isn't going to change a lot. We need to put our momey where our mouth is and pay for what we want. If the demand is there the supply will follow. At the moment the demand is for cheap imported products and then we can blame the likes of China for their awful carbon footprint and conveniently ignore our part in causing it. Mr Nonsense, I have 25+ year old cars still in working order, how do I know they are designed to break..I'm a mechanic & fabricator I know the trade & folk in it, been doing so for 16 years or so. I know how much labour & issues these sensors, crumple zones & like of make it harder to repair as well as manufacturers changing bolts heads to a patented design meaning only main stealers can fix those vehicles & consumers to pay higher prices, main stealers who charge almost 100ph labour btw, standard is 45ph & make it increasingly difficult for anyone to DIY repairs due to tools & complexity like having to remove a whole front end for a light bulb! Crumple zones that write off the whole vehicle etc. The reason you never need to fix the washing machine is because you just buy a new one & don't seek to repair. And as a management accountant I can tell you otherwise, the durability is always limited because they want you to buy again & again, if a company doesn't have returning customers it isn't classed as business, repairs make less profit so they are not interested in that & the waste & raw material consumption in continuing growth be damned. I agree with the consumer power & I do use mine as wisely as I can. The cobblers look at me strange when I get a pair of £30 shoes re-heeled @ £10 for instance & ask why, get told because they only need repaired, they aren't beyond repair. I will make a part or have it made/find alternative if I can't buy it, so I am true to what I speak. My TV & tech isnt 'smart' or hd & had them for years, I don't replace stuff for the latest trend or tech when it still serves it purpose fully." You have introduced a number of different factors there. Crumple zones are a safety feature. The laws of physics dictate that the force you feel in an impact is proportional to your (negative) acceleration. Manufacturers cannot control the speed you will crash so the only way they can change your acceleration is to increase the time it takes to stop hence crumple zones. It is absolutely true a modern car is likely to damage easier in a collision but this is all about safety and nothing to do with obsolescence. Specialist tools - I agree with you there, this is a way of keeping repairs in house, and as you say a way of making money - it doesn't add up to obsolescence though. Complexity making it harder to work on. Absolutely this is true but they don't make things complex so you can't work on them and buy a new one. They make them complex to improve the car. Electric windows and central locking are far more complex than the old manual systems but they weren't introduced to make your car breakdown sooner. Sure you could tinker with your ignition timing and a distributer cap is a lot simpler than an ecu but your old simple engine didn't achieve today's emission standards nor did it give you 70+mpg. Again, I agree cars are far harder to work on but the reason for this is nothing to do with making you buy a new one. You mention buying a new washing machine and that's the point, I haven't. Our washing machine is over a decade old and nothing has broken on it at all - you simply wouldn't have got that from a machine bought in 1980. Similarly you talk about 25 year old cars mine is 11 years old, has 205k on the clock, almost no rust and in 105k miles has had just a few suspension bits changed (and an expensive LED headlight unit (I got unlucky these are designed to outlive the car) I learnt to drive nearly 30 years ago, I wouldn't have dreamed then of buying a car with over 100k on the clock and certainly wouldn't have expected to put another 100+ on it still on the original clutch. The engine has a timing chain designed to last the lifetime of the vehicle, apart from oil changes and filters I've not touched that engine in 105000 miles. I'm sorry but cars built 20 - 30 years ago simply were not as reliable as modern ones and they rusted far more. Go back further and they were even worse. When did you last hear of someone having their big end rebuilt? I totally agree with you re repairing things. I get my climbing shoes re-soled, I stitch new buckles on things I have clothes over a decade old. I kept my last phone until it kept crashing as it didn't have the capacity to handle modern apps. This phone is approaching the end of its contract but I won't be upgrading as it works just fine. I agree with you that business models require new items to be bought but that isn't driven by designed in failure, its driven by advertising, fashion and innovation. There are doubtless many ipods still in existence, still working fine but no one wants them because their use is obsolete. Even where parts do fail like a phone battery they can be replaced but people don't, they want the latest gadget. Manufacturers know that once a contract is up, consumers will want the latest shiniest tech so why waste money and resources making a phone battery that will last 5 years when in 2 or 3 you'll be wanting a new phone anyway? Where things are designed to have a limited life the plan isn't to have them fail and make you buy new. If you were forced to buy a new phone because your old one had broken you would likely consider changing brands. Manufactures want you to buy new because you *want* what they are advertising not because the last thing they sold you failed. They design their products to match this turn over, the design limits are about saving money and giving you what you want. Why would Samsung design a battery with a 10 year life that puts 20% on the cost of a phone when they know within 3 years you'll be changing it? Equally why would they design a battery to last 2 years when they know many people have 3 year contracts and risk you switching to Apple because you've been let down? Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd let technology run its course and encourage 'third world countries' to develop faster. Cars now get more mpg than ever and pollute less. They require less energy to produce and they last far longer than in yesteryear. Due to innovation. Gas boilers are now far more efficient than ever before. Due to innovation. Encourage the 'third world' to respect property rights, the rule of law etc. This will...as in the UK hundreds of years ago...get their economies moving. Once that happens families will have 2 children instead of 10. A virtuous circle! What a crook of nonsense For one the reason China & India are huge polluters is not just their population size (which per person is lower carbon footprint than UK residents) but also because they are newly industrial, if they keep up at their current paces & wants towards a western lifestyle they'll be the worst...bear in mind where manufacturing occurs. New cars pollute less, better mpg yes but they ARE NOT made to last, they are programmed to break forcing you with a high bill for a diddly sensor of 1500 or likes of to which you'd rather get a new car than have the hassle, feeding the manufacturing machine & raw materials drawn from earth wrecking biodiversity in the process. On the other hand old cars are made to last, I have 3 (only 1road worthy ATM) parts are less in energy & raw materials so I'd much rather see a engine kit of sorts that would convert otherwise old shell of already mined & emitted resources a new life with a hydro or some other engine...I'm not a design engineer/inventor. Hydrogen bubblers improve emissions & mpg & easy to make so I do those. Gas boilers are powered by fossil fuels *facepalm And property ownership, well how you think we lost all the biodiversity? Landowners using the land for whatever was most profitable regardless of what was destroyed or who lived their prior...just look at the Highlands...they should not be barren plains, they should be forests....Tesla's site for batteries too.. disgusting. Not sure why you think newer cars are programed to break? You only have to read a Parkers guide to see how models improve, known faults get engineered out over the design history etc. Modern engines will happily run to 1/4 million miles and I have no idea what you drive that has £1500 sensors - that sounds like excessive labour charge to me. Many "expensive" goods last far longer than they used to. I am going to jinx myself now but I can't remember the last time I had to play around fixing a washing machine for example. There seems to be a widely held belief that things are designed to break and not be fixed but that isn't how the design process works. Every design is a balancing act between cost and lifespan. Cost includes the amount of material used and type of manufacturing process. Pressed parts and spot welds are far cheaper and easier to make than bolt together frames. The reason you can't get your hoover apart and replace the parts isn't because they want you to buy a new one, its because you won't pay over the market price and what you're prepared to pay gets an item that will last a given time. White goods and household electrical appliances have risen in price way below the rate of inflation despite continual improvements in function and durability this is due to continually shaving back the cost of manufacture, reducing to a minimum the materials used, the amount of time it takes to make, the number of processes it goes through. Parts will be assembled on test rigs and put through thousands, perhaps millions of cycles to ensure they have an appropriate lifespan with appropriate being determined by the cost the market will accept. I agree we should legislate for repairable items but that *will* cause prices to go up. This leads to a much bigger point. A huge amount of waste is due to consumer demand for cheap goods. We ship products around the globe because we don't want to pay the price of local labour and environmental laws, we don't want our new TV to cost more to cover sick pay, maternity pay and pensions so we buy it from a country where that's not an issue. We don't want to pay for our food to be organically grown/raised so we buy cheap from farms that intensively work their land and ignore the oncoming soil crises, the nitrogen pollution and the cruelty of raising chickens crammed together in air conditioned sheds. The truth is, if we want a sustainable future moaning about the government or big businesses isn't going to change a lot. We need to put our momey where our mouth is and pay for what we want. If the demand is there the supply will follow. At the moment the demand is for cheap imported products and then we can blame the likes of China for their awful carbon footprint and conveniently ignore our part in causing it. Mr Nonsense, I have 25+ year old cars still in working order, how do I know they are designed to break..I'm a mechanic & fabricator I know the trade & folk in it, been doing so for 16 years or so. I know how much labour & issues these sensors, crumple zones & like of make it harder to repair as well as manufacturers changing bolts heads to a patented design meaning only main stealers can fix those vehicles & consumers to pay higher prices, main stealers who charge almost 100ph labour btw, standard is 45ph & make it increasingly difficult for anyone to DIY repairs due to tools & complexity like having to remove a whole front end for a light bulb! Crumple zones that write off the whole vehicle etc. The reason you never need to fix the washing machine is because you just buy a new one & don't seek to repair. And as a management accountant I can tell you otherwise, the durability is always limited because they want you to buy again & again, if a company doesn't have returning customers it isn't classed as business, repairs make less profit so they are not interested in that & the waste & raw material consumption in continuing growth be damned. I agree with the consumer power & I do use mine as wisely as I can. The cobblers look at me strange when I get a pair of £30 shoes re-heeled @ £10 for instance & ask why, get told because they only need repaired, they aren't beyond repair. I will make a part or have it made/find alternative if I can't buy it, so I am true to what I speak. My TV & tech isnt 'smart' or hd & had them for years, I don't replace stuff for the latest trend or tech when it still serves it purpose fully. You have introduced a number of different factors there. Crumple zones are a safety feature. The laws of physics dictate that the force you feel in an impact is proportional to your (negative) acceleration. Manufacturers cannot control the speed you will crash so the only way they can change your acceleration is to increase the time it takes to stop hence crumple zones. It is absolutely true a modern car is likely to damage easier in a collision but this is all about safety and nothing to do with obsolescence. Specialist tools - I agree with you there, this is a way of keeping repairs in house, and as you say a way of making money - it doesn't add up to obsolescence though. Complexity making it harder to work on. Absolutely this is true but they don't make things complex so you can't work on them and buy a new one. They make them complex to improve the car. Electric windows and central locking are far more complex than the old manual systems but they weren't introduced to make your car breakdown sooner. Sure you could tinker with your ignition timing and a distributer cap is a lot simpler than an ecu but your old simple engine didn't achieve today's emission standards nor did it give you 70+mpg. Again, I agree cars are far harder to work on but the reason for this is nothing to do with making you buy a new one. You mention buying a new washing machine and that's the point, I haven't. Our washing machine is over a decade old and nothing has broken on it at all - you simply wouldn't have got that from a machine bought in 1980. Similarly you talk about 25 year old cars mine is 11 years old, has 205k on the clock, almost no rust and in 105k miles has had just a few suspension bits changed (and an expensive LED headlight unit (I got unlucky these are designed to outlive the car) I learnt to drive nearly 30 years ago, I wouldn't have dreamed then of buying a car with over 100k on the clock and certainly wouldn't have expected to put another 100+ on it still on the original clutch. The engine has a timing chain designed to last the lifetime of the vehicle, apart from oil changes and filters I've not touched that engine in 105000 miles. I'm sorry but cars built 20 - 30 years ago simply were not as reliable as modern ones and they rusted far more. Go back further and they were even worse. When did you last hear of someone having their big end rebuilt? I totally agree with you re repairing things. I get my climbing shoes re-soled, I stitch new buckles on things I have clothes over a decade old. I kept my last phone until it kept crashing as it didn't have the capacity to handle modern apps. This phone is approaching the end of its contract but I won't be upgrading as it works just fine. I agree with you that business models require new items to be bought but that isn't driven by designed in failure, its driven by advertising, fashion and innovation. There are doubtless many ipods still in existence, still working fine but no one wants them because their use is obsolete. Even where parts do fail like a phone battery they can be replaced but people don't, they want the latest gadget. Manufacturers know that once a contract is up, consumers will want the latest shiniest tech so why waste money and resources making a phone battery that will last 5 years when in 2 or 3 you'll be wanting a new phone anyway? Where things are designed to have a limited life the plan isn't to have them fail and make you buy new. If you were forced to buy a new phone because your old one had broken you would likely consider changing brands. Manufactures want you to buy new because you *want* what they are advertising not because the last thing they sold you failed. They design their products to match this turn over, the design limits are about saving money and giving you what you want. Why would Samsung design a battery with a 10 year life that puts 20% on the cost of a phone when they know within 3 years you'll be changing it? Equally why would they design a battery to last 2 years when they know many people have 3 year contracts and risk you switching to Apple because you've been let down? Mr" You're wasting your time providing facts to some people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a starter: 1) legislate to control planned obsolescence, the lack of repairability and goods which are too cheap to repair. Far too much junk is made that only lasts a few years. It makes profit and cons people into thinking something is affordable. But it comes at a very high hidden cost. Goods would become a LOT more expensive, but we’d be forced to think much more carefully about a purchase. 2) hugely increase the taxes on flights to invest in R&D on alternative fast transport. 3) stop underpinning failed business models with government bailouts. Let capitalism work. Invest the same money in new tech ventures to drive innovation. Giving bankers billions to simply ramp up commodity, stock and non productive assets under the pretence that some things are too big to fail is a waste of time. It does not fix the problem and encourages moral hazard. Just ideas. Not sating they are ‘the answer’. " The problem with that is you would not be in power longenugh to even get it in to the commons let alone make it law. Add 100% tax on anything disposable and all fule. Make anything green as in heat pumps, solar tax free or even a grant. Would be a start. But you look at having solar panels installed and you have to pay VAT on it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"climate change happens, it has always happened, i think we play a very small part in it, it goes from ice age to warm then ice age again, non story, even if we werent here it would happen, its very self centred of us to think we can change a planet Mr was saying a very similar thing earlier tonight. It has happened throughout history, ice age, then it melts. We can maybe do a little to slow the process but to think we can totally change the course of nature, nope. It’s a nice story to support doing nothing , but not backed up by science. The science shows humans are having a huge impact on the planet. " I'm not going to lie, I have paid very little attention as it is lead by hypocrites! But, with each of the 5 ice ages being so different without what we have now, what proof is there that says we have actually had a huge impact? And it is not in fact just a completely different cycle? (I agree we have had some what of an impact due to our existence) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is going to sound very Communist but stop turning everything into a business. Energy, stop making money from it. Trains, stop making money from it. " The environmental record of the communist countries is an order of magnitude worse than capitalist countries  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is going to sound very Communist but stop turning everything into a business. Energy, stop making money from it. Trains, stop making money from it. The environmental record of the communist countries is an order of magnitude worse than capitalist countries "Beyond Russia. . Which communist country is causing more pollution? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is going to sound very Communist but stop turning everything into a business. Energy, stop making money from it. Trains, stop making money from it. The environmental record of the communist countries is an order of magnitude worse than capitalist countries
Beyond Russia.
. Which communist country is causing more pollution? "... China? 
LvM | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is going to sound very Communist but stop turning everything into a business. Energy, stop making money from it. Trains, stop making money from it. The environmental record of the communist countries is an order of magnitude worse than capitalist countries
Beyond Russia.
. Which communist country is causing more pollution?
... China?
LvM"Very true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
.
Governments should be paying to protect these forests in Africa and in South America.
Up the planting of trees in this country too.
Buy back parts of the privately owned in the national parks or north Scotland or even force them to re plant. And get low threat prisoners out of prisons a d up into the hills to help plant.
Give them something to enjoy and even something to look forward to daily!
Jyst my Thursday rant lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly stop all the lithium mines ripping up stunning rain forests in central Africa… the lungs of the works are being ripped down so people can buy electric cars and the new phone every two years .
Governments should be paying to protect these forests in Africa and in South America.
Up the planting of trees in this country too.
Buy back parts of the privately owned in the national parks or north Scotland or even force them to re plant. And get low threat prisoners out of prisons a d up into the hills to help plant.
Give them something to enjoy and even something to look forward to daily!
Jyst my Thursday rant lol "Good points... Oh the irony of the lithium needed to drive cars to save the planet. Still there's money in flogging new cars and phones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly stop all the lithium mines ripping up stunning rain forests in central Africa… the lungs of the works are being ripped down so people can buy electric cars and the new phone every two years .
Governments should be paying to protect these forests in Africa and in South America.
Up the planting of trees in this country too.
Buy back parts of the privately owned in the national parks or north Scotland or even force them to re plant. And get low threat prisoners out of prisons a d up into the hills to help plant.
Give them something to enjoy and even something to look forward to daily!
Jyst my Thursday rant lol "Agree re the planting. The lithium mining is a bit more complex. Is it harmful? Absolutely is it more harmful than the alternative which is to carry on using old ICE vehicles or making more of them? Let's be honest, iron ore mining, bauxite mining, smelting etc are not exactly the most environmental friendly processes and old vehicles are a massive source of CO2. It is easy to look at a process like battery production for EV and point out its flaws, numerous EV oponents have made this very easy with a quick Google search. What is a lot trickier is a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact of say EV verses various other options -maintaining existing vehicles at all costs or banning lithium use in vehicles as two examples. Once you've looked at this there is still a massive problem with consumer demand. You're absolutely right that it would be much better not to update you phone every 2-3 years but would you volunteer to be the one who's phone takes crappy (er) pics, takes ages to load, crashes when you open certain apps? Ironically this site is the perfect example. It uses out of date tech, has had minimal updates in years and look at the regular complaints about it, if someone set up a *popular* rival site with all the bells and whistles people ask for on here how long would it be before this place folded or followed suit? If we want to protect the environment it isn't just a case of laws and blaming big corporations. Laws will constrain some absolutely but what do you think the chances are of a party getting voted in on a manifesto of limiting consumers to one new phone every 10 years? Corporations often have little respect for the environment and are absolutely all about profit but they can only do this because the likes of you and me are able to watch a news story about say child sl@very or clear cut rainforest then go out the next day and buy a new pair of jeans and celebrate with a McDonald's. We are the problem, all 7 billion of us. The planet would be just fine if we all consumed the same as the average Rwandan but you're never gonna convince people to make that level of personal sacrifice for the good of humanity, never mind to protect a few polar bears. Mr | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would be a good start to be truthful with what and who are the biggest polluters. Instead of the obsession with being able to monetise gesture politics. If cows really are the source and plant food really is the answer. Just kill the fucking cows.... But when we slaughtered cows by the million due to bse did we suddenly see a dip in.... Whatever it is we are supposed to see a dip? Its truly woeful watching the gimmick politics and tub thumpers. Have a bit of honesty and address the 20 percent that are responsible for 80 percent of the problem.... Pareto.... We've let frankensteins Chinese monster be created and now we don't seem willing to confront it. " I doubt we killed enough cows for it to register globally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
