FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is Net Zero Dead ?
Is Net Zero Dead ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
Rachel Reeves calling for a Third Runway at Heathrow.
EU set to announce new policy prioritising growth over carbon targets.
Trump saying drill, drill, drill.
China and India of course have never taken New Zero seriously.
Is this a return to political reality or a disaster for the environment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Now maybe the climate change will turn out to be some cyclical weather pattern that comes around every thousand years or so. But then again if it turns out as many scientists are forecasting and we are the generation that condemns the future people to an increasingly toxic mixture of droughts,firestorms and famines etc History will condemn us as selfish morons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rachel Reeves calling for a Third Runway at Heathrow.
EU set to announce new policy prioritising growth over carbon targets.
Trump saying drill, drill, drill.
China and India of course have never taken New Zero seriously.
Is this a return to political reality or a disaster for the environment? "
The runway at Heathrow also means the demolition of hundreds of homes so will not be cheap. Gatwick also looks like it will be given the Green light for a second runway.
In my opinion it time for s compleat re-think and have one larger major airport with multiple runways. Its just frustrating when you fly in to one airport and then out of another the link between LHR and LGW is so bad. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now maybe the climate change will turn out to be some cyclical weather pattern that comes around every thousand years or so. But then again if it turns out as many scientists are forecasting and we are the generation that condemns the future people to an increasingly toxic mixture of droughts,firestorms and famines etc History will condemn us as selfish morons. "
Fair comment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now maybe the climate change will turn out to be some cyclical weather pattern that comes around every thousand years or so. But then again if it turns out as many scientists are forecasting and we are the generation that condemns the future people to an increasingly toxic mixture of droughts,firestorms and famines etc History will condemn us as selfish morons. "
Even if this is a natural part of a cycle (and I don’t believe it is, because I trust experts), renewables just make more sense than fossil fuels. We should be striving to use the cleanest energy sources that we can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now maybe the climate change will turn out to be some cyclical weather pattern that comes around every thousand years or so. But then again if it turns out as many scientists are forecasting and we are the generation that condemns the future people to an increasingly toxic mixture of droughts,firestorms and famines etc History will condemn us as selfish morons. "
The Earth’s Climate always has, and always will change.
What it hasn’t done, is change this quick over a short period of time, as evidenced by Ice cores, carbon parts per million in the atmosphere, changes to lower atmospheric temperatures and other numerous observations.
It seems ‘Man Made Climate Change’ sceptics are now NOT saying it doesn’t exist, but that it’s ’too late’ or ‘too expensive’ to do anything about it.
So, Net Zero should still be the target.
To do anything else will be selfish and destructive to future generations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *eavilMan 4 days ago
Stalybridge |
Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us."
Net Zero isn’t about 100% reduction in emissions. Some emissions are unavoidable, like certain power plants, and certain forms of transportation.
It’s about reducing the ones that we can do without, by using different technologies and cleaner energy supplies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us."
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.? "
China are pulling ahead of everyone in renewable energy, resources (gained by dubious methods in Africa) and EV’s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.?
China are pulling ahead of everyone in renewable energy, resources (gained by dubious methods in Africa) and EV’s."
While increasing their fossil fuel output to make solar panels, EVs etc. They aren't destroying their industry like Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.?
China are pulling ahead of everyone in renewable energy, resources (gained by dubious methods in Africa) and EV’s.
While increasing their fossil fuel output to make solar panels, EVs etc. They aren't destroying their industry like Europe. "
And their fossil fuel output is predicted to plateau in the next few years, as Clean Energy provides more of their energy needs.
This is also predicted for their petroleum demand too.
Nothing will be achieved overnight, but governments have to make the change.
The change is inevitable, you can evolve or get left behind.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 4 days ago
Ballyshannon |
Governments cannot roll back on economic growth in favour of green policies. Carbon dioxide particles are at their highest now despite COP agreements etc. There's no stopping climate change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Now maybe the climate change will turn out to be some cyclical weather pattern that comes around every thousand years or so. But then again if it turns out as many scientists are forecasting and we are the generation that condemns the future people to an increasingly toxic mixture of droughts,firestorms and famines etc History will condemn us as selfish morons.
Even if this is a natural part of a cycle (and I don’t believe it is, because I trust experts), renewables just make more sense than fossil fuels. We should be striving to use the cleanest energy sources that we can. "
And what is that for an A380 how has a flight tracker APP I use Flightradar24 its amazing how meany aircraft are in the air at the same time last year it peeked at 22,000 there abouts at the same time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
Net Zero isn’t about 100% reduction in emissions. Some emissions are unavoidable, like certain power plants, and certain forms of transportation.
It’s about reducing the ones that we can do without, by using different technologies and cleaner energy supplies."
We can all live without flying on holidays but how is really going to not go to fly on holiday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It will be interesting to see how Reeves justifies a third runway for non essential air travel while motorists have to convert to EV and homeowners pay a green levy and business a climate levy on energy bills. And farmers paid for rewilding fields instead of growing food, while we import more food by diesel powered ship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Miliband is a total buffoon. I am sure that is why Starmer gave him the gig. He knows all his stuff is totally unachievable if you want to actually bring prosperity and growth the the country.
Miliband will again need an ‘Edstone’ for the burial of his political career once and for all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Miliband is a total buffoon. I am sure that is why Starmer gave him the gig. He knows all his stuff is totally unachievable if you want to actually bring prosperity and growth the the country.
Miliband will again need an ‘Edstone’ for the burial of his political career once and for all."
It’s a balancing act of present day growth vs long term environmental sustainability. Of course if we’d been more proactive 30-40 years ago we could have had both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Governments cannot roll back on economic growth in favour of green policies. Carbon dioxide particles are at their highest now despite COP agreements etc. There's no stopping climate change. "
Indeed. Millions of years worth of stored carbon have been released in a matter of decades. Probably irreversible. The only question being is whether mankind survive in the new atmosphere of Earth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Governments cannot roll back on economic growth in favour of green policies. Carbon dioxide particles are at their highest now despite COP agreements etc. There's no stopping climate change. "
there is no stopping climate change because the climate has been changing for 4.5bn years. Taxing people more will not change the weather….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Governments cannot roll back on economic growth in favour of green policies. Carbon dioxide particles are at their highest now despite COP agreements etc. There's no stopping climate change. there is no stopping climate change because the climate has been changing for 4.5bn years. Taxing people more will not change the weather…."
Weather and climate are not the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hope that BS net zero is dead and that lunatic ed millaband fucks off out of the UK with the rest of this clown government.. "
Net zero may be BS but changing weather is not
Floods and fires a global issue, human displacement, drought, flood and famine, crops going late into the ground, livestock kept in sheds for longer, inadequate urban drainage systems and run off. 2bn more people to feed by 2080. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.? "
Ooooh! That little pippin again.
While taken on face value it is probably true.
But when you put it into the context that China has more than a dozen times the UK population and is still increasing its fossil fuel consumption to make "green" products for the virtue signalling west. It just makes that statement meaningless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is not achievable.
All that Milliband et al are proposing amounts to virtue signalling.
If the UK and even Europe were to achieve a 100% reduction in the production of greenhouse gases the effect on the climate would be negligible.
The big produces of emissions - China, India and the US need to reduce drastically. Until they do so what we in the UK contribute is almost meaningless. The only ones that will suffer will be us.
You know China has invested far more in renewables than the U.K.?
Ooooh! That little pippin again.
While taken on face value it is probably true.
But when you put it into the context that China has more than a dozen times the UK population and is still increasing its fossil fuel consumption to make "green" products for the virtue signalling west. It just makes that statement meaningless."
And given China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe should they have an offset against countries that do not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means? "
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale."
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
"
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours."
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If an individual realy wants to go green let them think 1969 no heating in the home, ditch the car altogether, cook from scratch, wash by hand, only buy what is essential, and passenger flights where only for the rich.. but no its not for me. I done my bit buy not having children and planting trees in not so meany years I'll pass away leving very little trace of me being on this planet. But for now I'll enjoy what I want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now. "
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines. 
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges. "
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago."
OK. Maths lesson. Someone who was 25 in 1985 will be 65 now.
There were plenty of 20 somethings (and younger) wearing those badges as there are plenty of 60 somethings (and older) banging on about fossil fuels today.
Maybe you could pull that one off in another 20 years or so, but not just yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago.
OK. Maths lesson. Someone who was 25 in 1985 will be 65 now.
There were plenty of 20 somethings (and younger) wearing those badges as there are plenty of 60 somethings (and older) banging on about fossil fuels today.
Maybe you could pull that one off in another 20 years or so, but not just yet. "
What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges. "
And some Fossil Fuel Companies knew 50 years ago or more, of the impact of Carbon usage, and buried their findings. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago.
OK. Maths lesson. Someone who was 25 in 1985 will be 65 now.
There were plenty of 20 somethings (and younger) wearing those badges as there are plenty of 60 somethings (and older) banging on about fossil fuels today.
Maybe you could pull that one off in another 20 years or so, but not just yet.
What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you? "
And as said these people can give up heating there homes and flying the family to Nice holidays and purchasing tons of Chinese made goods. In the name of climate change, but I don't see meany wanting to reduce there life stile in the name of a better planet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago.
OK. Maths lesson. Someone who was 25 in 1985 will be 65 now.
There were plenty of 20 somethings (and younger) wearing those badges as there are plenty of 60 somethings (and older) banging on about fossil fuels today.
Maybe you could pull that one off in another 20 years or so, but not just yet.
What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
And as said these people can give up heating there homes and flying the family to Nice holidays and purchasing tons of Chinese made goods. In the name of climate change, but I don't see meany wanting to reduce there life stile in the name of a better planet."
Well it’s true that humans are inherently selfish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… the virtue signalling west.
Can you explain exactly what this means?
What else can it be?
Britain alone cannot make much (hardly any) difference to climate change and the whole of the EU would only make a small difference.
So flagellating ourselves and ruining (maybe even crashing) the economy can only be virtue signalling. There are no other benefits. It will only make us poorer, it certainly won't make us any richer.
Meanwhile Milliband will swan around doing his impression of Saint Holier Than Thou.
Virtue signalling on a Biblical scale.
Oh so if there’s no economic benefit to doing something, then doing it is automatically virtue signalling?
You’re aware how stupid that notion is?
No more stupid than thinking Milliband & co are actually trying to save the world.
Anyway if you think it isn't virtue signalling then (oh wise one) tell us what you think it is.
You are good at ridiculing other points of view but we very rarely hear yours.
Really? I suggest you’re not looking hard enough. I’ve been consistent on this topic - the future is an holistic approach using a broad mix of renewables, nuclear and phasing out of fossil fuels. A project we should have started 40 years ago and been a world leader in by now.
We did start 40 years ago.
Mrs T (allegedly) shut the coal mines.
As I remember (and I was around at the time) the same people who are now clamouring for wind and solar farms were then wearing "Coal not Dole" badges.
The same people? Really? Because I suspect many of the people warning of climate change either weren’t born or were children 40 years ago.
OK. Maths lesson. Someone who was 25 in 1985 will be 65 now.
There were plenty of 20 somethings (and younger) wearing those badges as there are plenty of 60 somethings (and older) banging on about fossil fuels today.
Maybe you could pull that one off in another 20 years or so, but not just yet.
What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
And as said these people can give up heating there homes and flying the family to Nice holidays and purchasing tons of Chinese made goods. In the name of climate change, but I don't see meany wanting to reduce there life stile in the name of a better planet.
Well it’s true that humans are inherently selfish. "
Except you of course. 
As for me I'll hold my hand up.
I'll do my bit when I can and when it suits me. We have solar panels because in Spain it made financial sense and of course every little helps.
But I'm not going to give up my car, my pool, my holidays (long haul one coming up soon ) to save a mere drop in the ocean when it comes to CO2 emissions. While at the same time the Chinese (among others) are building coal fired power stations to supply all the gadgets that the climate warriors refuse to give up, and so called celebrity's and politicians swanning around the world in private jets lecturing me on how we (meaning you really) should do more. Even if it wrecks economy's and puts millions out of work.
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
"
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally? "
China and India commissioning coal fired power stations on almost a weekly basis doesn't look like much effort to me.
While China did increase it's renewable generation by 26% it still uses fossil fuel for 82% of its energy, and remember that 26% of very little is er....very little.
The last available figures show that China's coal consumption increased by 4.6% to a record 4.5 billion tons and expected to increase again.
The last available figures for India show a 33% increase in coal fired power generation and renewables fell from just over 12% to 10%. Its hydro power generation fell by a whopping 26% although to be fair some of that was due to water shortages.
I picked that up from the Institute for Energy Research website. The last paragraph was interesting enough for me to copy and paste below.
"To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it".
Oh and the good old US of A is now on "drill baby drill"
I don't see much global effort from any of those. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally?
China and India commissioning coal fired power stations on almost a weekly basis doesn't look like much effort to me.
While China did increase it's renewable generation by 26% it still uses fossil fuel for 82% of its energy, and remember that 26% of very little is er....very little.
The last available figures show that China's coal consumption increased by 4.6% to a record 4.5 billion tons and expected to increase again.
The last available figures for India show a 33% increase in coal fired power generation and renewables fell from just over 12% to 10%. Its hydro power generation fell by a whopping 26% although to be fair some of that was due to water shortages.
I picked that up from the Institute for Energy Research website. The last paragraph was interesting enough for me to copy and paste below.
"To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it".
Oh and the good old US of A is now on "drill baby drill"
I don't see much global effort from any of those."
How many nations are there in the world? Are you waiting on China and the US to do something?
What about Scandinavia? France? Even Hungary are making concerted efforts. Many smaller nations already net zero or close to it.
Methinks you just don’t care what other nations are doing, in reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally?
China and India commissioning coal fired power stations on almost a weekly basis doesn't look like much effort to me.
While China did increase it's renewable generation by 26% it still uses fossil fuel for 82% of its energy, and remember that 26% of very little is er....very little.
The last available figures show that China's coal consumption increased by 4.6% to a record 4.5 billion tons and expected to increase again.
The last available figures for India show a 33% increase in coal fired power generation and renewables fell from just over 12% to 10%. Its hydro power generation fell by a whopping 26% although to be fair some of that was due to water shortages.
I picked that up from the Institute for Energy Research website. The last paragraph was interesting enough for me to copy and paste below.
"To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it".
Oh and the good old US of A is now on "drill baby drill"
I don't see much global effort from any of those.
How many nations are there in the world? Are you waiting on China and the US to do something?
What about Scandinavia? France? Even Hungary are making concerted efforts. Many smaller nations already net zero or close to it.
Methinks you just don’t care what other nations are doing, in reality. "
And just what difference are 30 million Scandinavians going to make against nearly 3 billion Chinese and Indians?
France only qualify's because of its nuclear capacity, not relying on windmills. And Hungary? Is that the best you can come up with?
China India and the USA are the worlds biggest polluters. On this subject the only ones that really matter. A few small countries are just drops in the ocean.
Oh one thing I forgot to put in the post above for India..
"Natural gas-fired generation also increased almost three-fold in the first half of October to 1,993 million kilowatt-hours, up from 700 million kilowatt-hours a year earlier".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
"
It's not just about those countries getting richer, which is absolutely their right, they want Europe to get poorer so less competition and also a market for their renewables and EVs. They must laugh themselves to sleep at night ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
"
What is most extraordinary is that naive people and politicians think those countries are impressed by our virtue signalling and will follow our lead ! They have learned the hard way not to trust or copy the West (China especially) and forge their own path to prosperity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
It's not just about those countries getting richer, which is absolutely their right, they want Europe to get poorer so less competition and also a market for their renewables and EVs. They must laugh themselves to sleep at night ! "
I'm sure they do.
I had a conversation with a Norwegian guy the other week and he was laughing at Britain.
Couldn't believe that we were so stupid to stop issuing North Sea licences while his country was selling us gas from the same area. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
"
And this in turn will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of 2bn more people; a 25% increase in the global population by 2080 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally?
China and India commissioning coal fired power stations on almost a weekly basis doesn't look like much effort to me.
While China did increase it's renewable generation by 26% it still uses fossil fuel for 82% of its energy, and remember that 26% of very little is er....very little.
The last available figures show that China's coal consumption increased by 4.6% to a record 4.5 billion tons and expected to increase again.
The last available figures for India show a 33% increase in coal fired power generation and renewables fell from just over 12% to 10%. Its hydro power generation fell by a whopping 26% although to be fair some of that was due to water shortages.
I picked that up from the Institute for Energy Research website. The last paragraph was interesting enough for me to copy and paste below.
"To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it".
Oh and the good old US of A is now on "drill baby drill"
I don't see much global effort from any of those.
How many nations are there in the world? Are you waiting on China and the US to do something?
What about Scandinavia? France? Even Hungary are making concerted efforts. Many smaller nations already net zero or close to it.
Methinks you just don’t care what other nations are doing, in reality.
And just what difference are 30 million Scandinavians going to make against nearly 3 billion Chinese and Indians?
"
As I suggested. It wouldn’t matter what anyone else does. You don’t want to, so you think we shouldn’t .
Like I said, people are inherently selfish. Maybe we should hasten our departure and leave the planet to animals who deserve it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
Like I said, people are inherently selfish. Maybe we should hasten our departure and leave the planet to animals who deserve it. "
There you have it, the Green morality. Human are sinners who have despoiled paradise and now must pay. Its the Adam and Eve myth repackaged. Impoverish ourselves as punishment. That was the appeal of oddball Greta Thurnburg, an 'innocent' child sent to teach us the error of our ways ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
"
That's a stark statistic indeed. Is there a tipping point? You say all of Europe would not make much difference but what if it was say Europe plus all non European countries excluding USA, China and India. Would that then offset the big 3 polluters or do we need at least one of the big 3 to also go net zero to get past the tipping point. The west crashing their own economies is also bad for the likes of China as they need customers to sell to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you? "
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?"
That’s quite a stretch, given that thatcher only wanted to close down expensive British mines and import coal from abroad to replace it, rather than any green agenda.
But you knew that already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
Like I said, people are inherently selfish. Maybe we should hasten our departure and leave the planet to animals who deserve it.
There you have it, the Green morality. Human are sinners who have despoiled paradise and now must pay. It’s the Adam and Eve myth repackaged. Impoverish ourselves as punishment. That was the appeal of oddball Greta Thurnburg, an 'innocent' child sent to teach us the error of our ways ! "
That’s a very bizarre way of looking at it, but whatever floats your boat.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?"
Thatcher was the first major British leader I ever heard talk about climate change, back in the late 80s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?
Thatcher was the first major British leader I ever heard talk about climate change, back in the late 80s."
Which tallies with the widespread science of the time. I was at school then - we started learning about climate, the ozone layer (that was a couple of years later if I recall). Recycling etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?
Thatcher was the first major British leader I ever heard talk about climate change, back in the late 80s.
Which tallies with the widespread science of the time. I was at school then - we started learning about climate, the ozone layer (that was a couple of years later if I recall). Recycling etc.
"
I think that was only in private schools? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?
Thatcher was the first major British leader I ever heard talk about climate change, back in the late 80s.
Which tallies with the widespread science of the time. I was at school then - we started learning about climate, the ozone layer (that was a couple of years later if I recall). Recycling etc.
I think that was only in private schools?"
Now I know you’re confused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?"
"Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?"
"That’s quite a stretch, given that thatcher only wanted to close down expensive British mines and import coal from abroad to replace it, rather than any green agenda."
She only intended to import coal from abroad as a stopgap whilst the new fleet of nuclear power stations was being built, with the intention of commissioning a new nuclear plant every decade. She even brought in the Non-Fossil Fuel Energy Obligation to fund it all.
Regardless off her intentions, she did stop coal mining, and significantly hasten the end of coal usage in this country, and that has to have been a good thing. Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?
That’s quite a stretch, given that thatcher only wanted to close down expensive British mines and import coal from abroad to replace it, rather than any green agenda.
She only intended to import coal from abroad as a stopgap whilst the new fleet of nuclear power stations was being built, with the intention of commissioning a new nuclear plant every decade. She even brought in the Non-Fossil Fuel Energy Obligation to fund it all.
Regardless off her intentions, she did stop coal mining, and significantly hasten the end of coal usage in this country, and that has to have been a good thing. Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?"
Yes. And she built more council houses than Labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?"
But that’s not what you asked. You said she should be praised for ‘leading the way’ when you know full well that her battles to close the mines weren’t due to her environmental concerns, but myriad factors including her ideological stance against the trade unions.
Should we praise Nigel Farage when we eventually rejoin the single market/customs union? After all, without him we’d not appreciate how valuable they are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What about all the 20 somethings, 30 somethings, 40 somethings, 50 something’s now talking about climate change?
I’d wager they outnumber the vanishingly small number of people you’re talking about, wouldn’t you?
Does that mean that we can look forward to a new young generation of Labour voters that will look at history and pour praise upon Margaret Thatcher for leading the way and closing all the coal mines?
Would you like to show willing, and agree that Thatcher has been unjustly vilified?
That’s quite a stretch, given that thatcher only wanted to close down expensive British mines and import coal from abroad to replace it, rather than any green agenda.
She only intended to import coal from abroad as a stopgap whilst the new fleet of nuclear power stations was being built, with the intention of commissioning a new nuclear plant every decade. She even brought in the Non-Fossil Fuel Energy Obligation to fund it all.
Regardless off her intentions, she did stop coal mining, and significantly hasten the end of coal usage in this country, and that has to have been a good thing. Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?
Yes. And she built more council houses than Labour. "
Shame her policy can be followed all the way to the current housing crisis. (Aided by every government since) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?"
"But that’s not what you asked. You said she should be praised for ‘leading the way’ when you know full well that her battles to close the mines weren’t due to her environmental concerns, but myriad factors including her ideological stance against the trade unions."
Well, I think we've all learned where your convictions lie, and how useful it is to engage in debate with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?
But that’s not what you asked. You said she should be praised for ‘leading the way’ when you know full well that her battles to close the mines weren’t due to her environmental concerns, but myriad factors including her ideological stance against the trade unions.
Well, I think we've all learned where your convictions lie, and how useful it is to engage in debate with you."
Indeed. You invented a nonsense point, and I’ve given it the engagement it deserved.
Have fun! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?
But that’s not what you asked. You said she should be praised for ‘leading the way’ when you know full well that her battles to close the mines weren’t due to her environmental concerns, but myriad factors including her ideological stance against the trade unions.
Well, I think we've all learned where your convictions lie, and how useful it is to engage in debate with you.
Indeed. You invented a nonsense point, and I’ve given it the engagement it deserved.
Have fun! "
Fabulous to have you back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Are you really incapable of admitting that her actions ultimately turned out to have benefited us all?
But that’s not what you asked. You said she should be praised for ‘leading the way’ when you know full well that her battles to close the mines weren’t due to her environmental concerns, but myriad factors including her ideological stance against the trade unions.
Well, I think we've all learned where your convictions lie, and how useful it is to engage in debate with you.
Indeed. You invented a nonsense point, and I’ve given it the engagement it deserved.
Have fun!
Fabulous to have you back "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Miliband is a total buffoon. I am sure that is why Starmer gave him the gig. He knows all his stuff is totally unachievable if you want to actually bring prosperity and growth the the country.
Miliband will again need an ‘Edstone’ for the burial of his political career once and for all."
He's is a total 🤡 for sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
And this in turn will be dwarfed by the carbon footprint of 2bn more people; a 25% increase in the global population by 2080 "
So as I put we all need to stop having children. Helps everything.
There are just to meany peoples. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"…
When I see a concerted effort on a world scale, not just on some insignificant lump of rock in the north Atlantic, then I'd probably muck in a bit more.
Until then I say stuff 'em.
So you’re just going to ignore the efforts that are indeed going on globally?
China and India commissioning coal fired power stations on almost a weekly basis doesn't look like much effort to me.
While China did increase it's renewable generation by 26% it still uses fossil fuel for 82% of its energy, and remember that 26% of very little is er....very little.
The last available figures show that China's coal consumption increased by 4.6% to a record 4.5 billion tons and expected to increase again.
The last available figures for India show a 33% increase in coal fired power generation and renewables fell from just over 12% to 10%. Its hydro power generation fell by a whopping 26% although to be fair some of that was due to water shortages.
I picked that up from the Institute for Energy Research website. The last paragraph was interesting enough for me to copy and paste below.
"To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it".
Oh and the good old US of A is now on "drill baby drill"
I don't see much global effort from any of those.
How many nations are there in the world? Are you waiting on China and the US to do something?
What about Scandinavia? France? Even Hungary are making concerted efforts. Many smaller nations already net zero or close to it.
Methinks you just don’t care what other nations are doing, in reality.
And just what difference are 30 million Scandinavians going to make against nearly 3 billion Chinese and Indians?
As I suggested. It wouldn’t matter what anyone else does. You don’t want to, so you think we shouldn’t .
Like I said, people are inherently selfish. Maybe we should hasten our departure and leave the planet to animals who deserve it. "
That will happen animals will evolv and humans will become extinct. But in my life time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
That's a stark statistic indeed. Is there a tipping point? You say all of Europe would not make much difference but what if it was say Europe plus all non European countries excluding USA, China and India. Would that then offset the big 3 polluters or do we need at least one of the big 3 to also go net zero to get past the tipping point. The west crashing their own economies is also bad for the likes of China as they need customers to sell to"
If the West crashing there economy means they buy less from China it will be a good thing for the planet, but not for the people.
Recession is the way forward for the planet. If we where all skint and couldn't afford cars, Holidays,heating, luxury items,luxury food, we should create less CO2. Witch is good no.
As I said further up it would be like getting back to the 70's repairing jeans for the kids darning socks, ice on the inside of the windows, 1 TV in the house. Beans on toast before pay day as that's all you could afford. Bred and dripping. Chrisps and chocolate mabe at weekends if it was after pay day.
So what is wrong with less being the way forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
That's a stark statistic indeed. Is there a tipping point? You say all of Europe would not make much difference but what if it was say Europe plus all non European countries excluding USA, China and India. Would that then offset the big 3 polluters or do we need at least one of the big 3 to also go net zero to get past the tipping point. The west crashing their own economies is also bad for the likes of China as they need customers to sell to
If the West crashing there economy means they buy less from China it will be a good thing for the planet, but not for the people.
Recession is the way forward for the planet. If we where all skint and couldn't afford cars, Holidays,heating, luxury items,luxury food, we should create less CO2. Witch is good no.
As I said further up it would be like getting back to the 70's repairing jeans for the kids darning socks, ice on the inside of the windows, 1 TV in the house. Beans on toast before pay day as that's all you could afford. Bred and dripping. Chrisps and chocolate mabe at weekends if it was after pay day.
So what is wrong with less being the way forward."
My bit about buying less from China was not about the environmental impact, as I never considered that, but it's a good point. I was thinking and badly explaining that I don't think China would want to see Europe crash as it affects them badly economically. Unfortunately we seem hell bent on crashing ourselves. The other bit was asking where is the tipping point of there is a tipping point without the big 3 polluters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would just add.
If the whole of Europe achieved net zero any worldwide benefit would be negated in a few short years solely from China and India's increases.
That's a stark statistic indeed. Is there a tipping point? You say all of Europe would not make much difference but what if it was say Europe plus all non European countries excluding USA, China and India. Would that then offset the big 3 polluters or do we need at least one of the big 3 to also go net zero to get past the tipping point. The west crashing their own economies is also bad for the likes of China as they need customers to sell to
If the West crashing there economy means they buy less from China it will be a good thing for the planet, but not for the people.
Recession is the way forward for the planet. If we where all skint and couldn't afford cars, Holidays,heating, luxury items,luxury food, we should create less CO2. Witch is good no.
As I said further up it would be like getting back to the 70's repairing jeans for the kids darning socks, ice on the inside of the windows, 1 TV in the house. Beans on toast before pay day as that's all you could afford. Bred and dripping. Chrisps and chocolate mabe at weekends if it was after pay day.
So what is wrong with less being the way forward."
Have fun selling that idea to generation Z. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
