Based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research findings on the latest climate change science , Friends of the Earth report that there is over 95% certainty that human influence is the dominant factor in warming since the mid 20th century. To put that into perspective, scientists are as certain that humans are warming the planet as they are that smoking causes cancer.
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
You don't have to be an eco-warrior to make a contribution. You can carbon offset air flights and your car fuel usage. You can reduce your red meat consumption. You can try and avoid single-use plastic. You can insulate your home and if you haven't already convert you lighting to LED. There are countless other measures that we can take as individuals and although the resultant CO2 reduction may be relatively negligible, collectively it will become increasingly significant as more people make an effort.
Alternatively we can shrug, ignore it and mumble something along the lines of "we've all got to die sometime".
I'm drawing a pension now and the advancing years makes me more aware of my mortality, something that I didn't confront twenty or more years ago. If anything age has made me more conscious of the climate change issue and my minor efforts to counteract it are motivated by the future prospects for my Grandchildren which at the moment look very bleak.
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
You don't have to be an eco-warrior to make a contribution. You can carbon offset air flights and your car fuel usage. You can reduce your red meat consumption. You can try and avoid single-use plastic. You can insulate your home and if you haven't already convert you lighting to LED. There are countless other measures that we can take as individuals and although the resultant CO2 reduction may be relatively negligible, collectively it will become increasingly significant as more people make an effort.
Alternatively we can shrug, ignore it and mumble something along the lines of "we've all got to die sometime".
I'm drawing a pension now and the advancing years makes me more aware of my mortality, something that I didn't confront twenty or more years ago. If anything age has made me more conscious of the climate change issue and my minor efforts to counteract it are motivated by the future prospects for my Grandchildren which at the moment look very bleak.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post but until change is directed and paid for by government the changes we collectively make are although worthwhile not enough to save us from the awaiting catastrophe. Make no mistake we’re doomed.
My post was in response to Leuth’s message about “excluding” people who take flights and his description of eco-warriors. Obviously the Government needs to meaningfully address the issue and I’m fully aware of the consequences if they don’t.
My post was in response to Leuth’s message about “excluding” people who take flights and his description of eco-warriors. Obviously the Government needs to meaningfully address the issue and I’m fully aware of the consequences if they don’t.
It’s also not just our government or those of rich western countries. Places like India and Brazil are going to need massive help to make enough changes. Countries like China and the USA are going to have to be fully on board. We need to be running to address this and we’re still barely walking.
Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.
China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
- Why is there not logic in protesting for action when governments literally DO have the power to effect changes to laws? Whether the law is rooted in discrimination or not, the mechanism for amending/repealing/introducing new laws remains the same, regardless of whether it is a law that "maintains discrimination", or any other law.
- We have reserves of fossil fuels, this is the thing. They're limited (a few decades or so) but extant. Now is absolutely the time to try and make renewables - and in my opinion, nuclear - as viable as is possible. And that is why people are protesting or otherwise making their views known.
- Why are you contending that JSO is just "pissing into the wind"? This is opinion dressed up as fact. And why have you brought China's form of government into it? And how is wanting to arrest the effects of man-made climate change "virtue signalling"? People are risking arrest and imprisonment, how is that anything other than direct action at their own risk?! They're putting their money where their mouth and morals are.
- I would fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's mainly about overpopulation: look at @Siv_in_Norfolk and his chart a few posts back. The poorest 50% contribute only 10% of total lifestyle consumption emissions. This said, overpopulation over the last, what, 100 years, 200 years might be a factor - but how can we just slash in half the world's population? We can't. Just as you feel protesting is pointless, so would trying to find a way to reduce the planet's population.
- There already is a lot of literature around changing individual consumption habits, but so much pollution comes from corporations that both need to be emphasised. Though, I don't disagree with your general point about individual responsibility. I just think that politicians have way more power to help engender change, so should be pressured accordingly.
The powers politicians have is limited and changes they make and have made to reduce fossil fuel consumption is as much as we are ever likely to get. Government can't do what JSO demands without a manifesto supported by the electorate. If such a mandate were acceptable to the electorate the Green Party would be in power.
Thats why I raised China. It has achieved more than we have with a complete absence of politicians. It has an unelected executive which makes decisions to ensure it remains in power. It can pass laws regardless of the impact on the population enforced by violence if necessary. Politicians in a democracy can only react to what the electorate will tolerate.
The wealthiest are an obvious scapegoat in the argument against consumption but the figures based on wealth tell nothing about personal consumption. How many iPhones do the wealthiest 10% have compared to the rest of the World? What impact do the wealthiest have on the consumption of food from the World's supermarkets, half of which is thrown away. Not sure what percentage of the World's consumption is comprised of luxury yachts and jets but doubt that making their purchase illegal would have much impact on global fossil fuel consumption.
Just another diversion from the truth that personal responsibility is the real issue.
Saw a poster in a shop window window yesterday that sums it up for me - "Every time you spend you cast a vote for what kind of World you want" But carry on blaming politicians and the wealthy.
Suffragettes, Civil Rights and Slavery were issues that changed through politicians changing the law. There was logic in protesting for action against people with the power to effect the changes to laws which maintained discrimination.
Stopping licensing of new oil, gas and coal projects without a viable energy alternative in place is not going to happen and protesting for action that is not within the gift of anyone is futile.
China is making changes, including the flooding of towns and villages for hydro electric power because it can. If JSO is advocating political change that allows us to follow China’s lead in the form of a dictatorship it should say so. Otherwise JSO is just pissing into the wind, giving a focus for virtue signalers and satisfaction for those knowing they are “doing something” - however pointless.
I support their sentiment to increase awareness of the need for climate change as much as I support the sentiment to solve poverty. Both have the same underlying cause - over population of the planet. When a protest group comes up with an humane solution for over population for politicians to take on board, it might justify its existence.
A more honest approach is needed that emphasizes individual responsibility to change consumption habits rather than the idea that politicians are the core problem and hold all the answers.
- Why is there not logic in protesting for action when governments literally DO have the power to effect changes to laws? Whether the law is rooted in discrimination or not, the mechanism for amending/repealing/introducing new laws remains the same, regardless of whether it is a law that "maintains discrimination", or any other law.
- We have reserves of fossil fuels, this is the thing. They're limited (a few decades or so) but extant. Now is absolutely the time to try and make renewables - and in my opinion, nuclear - as viable as is possible. And that is why people are protesting or otherwise making their views known.
- Why are you contending that JSO is just "pissing into the wind"? This is opinion dressed up as fact. And why have you brought China's form of government into it? And how is wanting to arrest the effects of man-made climate change "virtue signalling"? People are risking arrest and imprisonment, how is that anything other than direct action at their own risk?! They're putting their money where their mouth and morals are.
- I would fundamentally disagree with the notion that it's mainly about overpopulation: look at @Siv_in_Norfolk and his chart a few posts back. The poorest 50% contribute only 10% of total lifestyle consumption emissions. This said, overpopulation over the last, what, 100 years, 200 years might be a factor - but how can we just slash in half the world's population? We can't. Just as you feel protesting is pointless, so would trying to find a way to reduce the planet's population.
- There already is a lot of literature around changing individual consumption habits, but so much pollution comes from corporations that both need to be emphasised. Though, I don't disagree with your general point about individual responsibility. I just think that politicians have way more power to help engender change, so should be pressured accordingly.
The powers politicians have is limited and changes they make and have made to reduce fossil fuel consumption is as much as we are ever likely to get. Government can't do what JSO demands without a manifesto supported by the electorate. If such a mandate were acceptable to the electorate the Green Party would be in power.
Thats why I raised China. It has achieved more than we have with a complete absence of politicians. It has an unelected executive which makes decisions to ensure it remains in power. It can pass laws regardless of the impact on the population enforced by violence if necessary. Politicians in a democracy can only react to what the electorate will tolerate.
The wealthiest are an obvious scapegoat in the argument against consumption but the figures based on wealth tell nothing about personal consumption. How many iPhones do the wealthiest 10% have compared to the rest of the World? What impact do the wealthiest have on the consumption of food from the World's supermarkets, half of which is thrown away. Not sure what percentage of the World's consumption is comprised of luxury yachts and jets but doubt that making their purchase illegal would have much impact on global fossil fuel consumption.
Just another diversion from the truth that personal responsibility is the real issue.
Saw a poster in a shop window window yesterday that sums it up for me - "Every time you spend you cast a vote for what kind of World you want" But carry on blaming politicians and the wealthy.
No. It’s leadership that’s needed more than anything else. Targets set and met. Money spent way over what’s currently spent on renewables and on initiatives to insulate every home. Replace windows and doors. Provide free LED lights for everyone. Grants for new boilers and were appropriate solar panels. What people can do individually certainly helps but unless this is top down led with real vigour we’re pissing in the wind.
This is problematic for me. I believe we are on the brink of a global catastrophe but don't really do anything about it, apart from put the rubbish in the right bins. These people believe in it too but act on that belief. I don't think what they do makes a lot of difference, which may be why I don't do anything, but even when I was delayed for hours on the M25 visiting my son in Bournemouth, I found it hard to criticise them. Actually I did a first taking my dog for a short walk on the M25!
This is part of my issue with those that shout the loudest. I can guarantee they have been on many more flights than I have in the past 10 years, recycle less, use their cars more and generally have a far higher carbon footprint than me.
I still disagree with their antics/tactics yet will be labelled as being right wing press influenced for disagreeing, even though I've done more to cut my carbon footprint than they have.
Hands up if you're passionate about changing things but have been on an aircraft at least once every year for the past decade?
As long as you're paying £12 to plant a tree to offset the carbon emissions, I cant see the problem with flying.
Largely interesting debate, with the usual predictable interjections from our resident SJWs and all round moral superiors.
Some observations:
1. Seeing anthropogenic climate change as 'arguable' is just being slippery. The effect of greenhouse gases on temperature within even a moderately closed system is inarguable. It can be demonstrated by a simple experiment involving two plastic bottles containing thermometers, one filled with CO2 and one with normal air. Next, look at a graph of CO2 emissions and how they went stratospheric (no pun intended) after the industrial revolution, roughly starting around 1750. Put the two together and it is undeniable that we are warming the planet, the only question is to what extent.
2. Even if everyone in the UK went back to a stone-age lifestyle, it would make very little difference to the above effect due to much more populated countries actually increasing their emissions as they seek to (understandably) increase their standard of living to match western norms. We beat ourselves up about it constantly, but countries like China could not give less of a shit - somewhat of a problem if we are to address the issue at all in any significant manner.
3. Should we all attempt to personally minimise our emissions? I think so, but we have to draw the line somewhere, which will once again lead to disagreements as to where exactly that line should be. You could recycle, use eco alternatives, adopt a vegan diet etc., but as soon as you board an airplane then you have effectively made all of your other previous noble efforts statistically insignificant. If we really want to make a significant change, then we should tax the living shit out of air travel to the point where it becomes as rare as it once was. This, of course, like any green tax (ULEZ, cough, cough) means that only the rich would be able to afford to travel, but to pretend that cheap air travel is not a ridiculous anomaly in countries signed up to climate change agreements is just dumb. It is industrial scale subsidised carbon emission, completely at odds with any policy aimed at reducing emission.
4. To the above end, if you are one of those posh types that are currently gluing yourself to roads or disrupting sports events and you don't use air travel, then I have a certain level of respect for you. If you do, then you're just another eco-hypocrite, as is anyone who virtue signals their support for JSO, lectures others on their lifestyles and still uses air travel.
5. Do we need to move on from oil? Of course, but it will take a while given our lack of cheap alternatives to the by-products of petroleum and their ubiquitous presence in so many products from plastic to pharmaceuticals. So the protestors are right that we need to do so, but there are ways and ways of raising this issue and they have been pretty dumb in terms of strategy - they have probably hurt their cause more than helping it in terms of public support. I mean, disrupting people going about their daily business is guaranteed to piss them off, and I am personally surprised that more of the self-righteous dopes have not been filled in by Joe Public for deliberately choosing the public to target rather than specific companies or those in power who may not have been doing enough to address the issue.
Why JSO may seem to make unintelligent decisions and this puzzled me, until last night I saw this interview (From 'This Morning' with Ed Balls etc.) with a representative of Insulate Britain defending attacking George Osborne (not that I'm a fan of his, TBH) on his wedding day, which was absolutely staggering. This particular representative could not have done more to hurt her cause with an intellectually superior attitude matched with an astounding lack of intellect - Dunning-Kruger made flesh:
Largely interesting debate, with the usual predictable interjections from our resident SJWs and all round moral superiors.
Some observations:
1. Seeing anthropogenic climate change as 'arguable' is just being slippery. The effect of greenhouse gases on temperature within even a moderately closed system is inarguable. It can be demonstrated by a simple experiment involving two plastic bottles containing thermometers, one filled with CO2 and one with normal air. Next, look at a graph of CO2 emissions and how they went stratospheric (no pun intended) after the industrial revolution, roughly starting around 1750. Put the two together and it is undeniable that we are warming the planet, the only question is to what extent.
2. Even if everyone in the UK went back to a stone-age lifestyle, it would make very little difference to the above effect due to much more populated countries actually increasing their emissions as they seek to (understandably) increase their standard of living to match western norms. We beat ourselves up about it constantly, but countries like China could not give less of a shit - somewhat of a problem if we are to address the issue at all in any significant manner.
3. Should we all attempt to personally minimise our emissions? I think so, but we have to draw the line somewhere, which will once again lead to disagreements as to where exactly that line should be. You could recycle, use eco alternatives, adopt a vegan diet etc., but as soon as you board an airplane then you have effectively made all of your other previous noble efforts statistically insignificant. If we really want to make a significant change, then we should tax the living shit out of air travel to the point where it becomes as rare as it once was. This, of course, like any green tax (ULEZ, cough, cough) means that only the rich would be able to afford to travel, but to pretend that cheap air travel is not a ridiculous anomaly in countries signed up to climate change agreements is just dumb. It is industrial scale subsidised carbon emission, completely at odds with any policy aimed at reducing emission.
4. To the above end, if you are one of those posh types that are currently gluing yourself to roads or disrupting sports events and you don't use air travel, then I have a certain level of respect for you. If you do, then you're just another eco-hypocrite, as is anyone who virtue signals their support for JSO, lectures others on their lifestyles and still uses air travel.
5. Do we need to move on from oil? Of course, but it will take a while given our lack of cheap alternatives to the by-products of petroleum and their ubiquitous presence in so many products from plastic to pharmaceuticals. So the protestors are right that we need to do so, but there are ways and ways of raising this issue and they have been pretty dumb in terms of strategy - they have probably hurt their cause more than helping it in terms of public support. I mean, disrupting people going about their daily business is guaranteed to piss them off, and I am personally surprised that more of the self-righteous dopes have not been filled in by Joe Public for deliberately choosing the public to target rather than specific companies or those in power who may not have been doing enough to address the issue.
Why JSO may seem to make unintelligent decisions and this puzzled me, until last night I saw this interview (From 'This Morning' with Ed Balls etc.) with a representative of Insulate Britain defending attacking George Osborne (not that I'm a fan of his, TBH) on his wedding day, which was absolutely staggering. This particular representative could not have done more to hurt her cause with an intellectually superior attitude matched with an astounding lack of intellect - Dunning-Kruger made flesh:
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
You don't have to be an eco-warrior to make a contribution. You can carbon offset air flights and your car fuel usage. You can reduce your red meat consumption. You can try and avoid single-use plastic. You can insulate your home and if you haven't already convert you lighting to LED. There are countless other measures that we can take as individuals and although the resultant CO2 reduction may be relatively negligible, collectively it will become increasingly significant as more people make an effort.
Alternatively we can shrug, ignore it and mumble something along the lines of "we've all got to die sometime".
I'm drawing a pension now and the advancing years makes me more aware of my mortality, something that I didn't confront twenty or more years ago. If anything age has made me more conscious of the climate change issue and my minor efforts to counteract it are motivated by the future prospects for my Grandchildren which at the moment look very bleak.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post but until change is directed and paid for by government the changes we collectively make are although worthwhile not enough to save us from the awaiting catastrophe. Make no mistake we’re doomed.
and where does that money originate?
the sooner we all make all those individual minor improvements to our conduct, the gentler the impact of the grand macro level revolution will be
all these things are under the general heading of "trying not to be an arsehole" not much of an imposition really is it?
Solar plant in sunny place = free money, why wouldn't they build one? It's interesting the bigger picture is being ignored:
'This report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) takes a closer look at China’s permitting of new coal power plants in 2022, the possible implications for China’s climate commitments, and provides policy recommendations.
Coal power plant permitting, construction starts and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. The coal power capacity starting construction in China was six times as large as that in all of the rest of the world combined.'
Key findings of the report
Coal power plant permitting, construction starts and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. The coal power capacity starting construction in China was six times as large as that in all of the rest of the world combined.
50 GW of coal power capacity started construction in China in 2022, a more than 50% increase from 2021. Many of these projects had their permits fast-tracked and moved to construction in a matter of months. A total of 106 GW of new coal power projects were permitted, the equivalent of two large coal power plants per week 1. The amount of capacity permitted more than quadrupled from 23 GW in 2021. Of the projects permitted in 2022, 60 GW were not under construction in January 2023, but are likely to start construction soon, indicating even more construction starts in 2023. In total, 86 GW of new coal power projects were initiated, more than doubling from 40 GW in 2021.
The largest amount of capacity moved ahead in Guangdong, Jiangsu, Anhui, Zhejiang and Hubei.
New coal power capacity added to the grid kept steady from 26.2 GW in 2021 to 26.8 GW in 2022. These two years had the lowest annual additions since 2003, reflecting the lower level of construction starts around 2017–2020. Capacity additions will rebound in a few years when projects that broke ground last year begin to come online.
China has seen a rapid increase in electric peak loads in 2021–2022, with the highest recorded momentary load increasing by 230 GW, due to an increase in the prevalence of air conditioners and exceptionally intense heat waves. This is prompting an increase in coal power plant development as a costly and sub-optimal solution, especially in major electricity demand centres and provinces neighboring them.
Of China’s six regional grids, the South and East grid are the only ones that don’t suffer from a clear thermal power overcapacity problem. Yet, 50% of newly announced projects and 40% of construction starts took place in the grids with overcapacity.
The provinces permitting a large amount of new coal power plants try to justify the projects as “supporting” power capacity to ensure grid stability and the integration of renewable energy. This justification doesn’t hold water, however, as the plants are intended to run at baseload utilization, and these specific provinces are laggards in growing clean energy generation to meet their demand growth.
Avoiding the need for more coal-fired power plants requires improvements in energy efficiency, demand response and investments in storage, as well as improving grid operation.
Plant retirements slowed down further in 2022, with 4.1 GW of coal-fired capacity closed down in 2022, compared with 5.2 GW in 2021. Policies on closing down small and inefficient plants have been revised to keep these plants online instead as back-up or in normal operation after retrofits.
You're right; that Xi Jinping is like the Chinese version of Swampy.
Why JSO may seem to make unintelligent decisions and this puzzled me, until last night I saw this interview (From 'This Morning' with Ed Balls etc.) with a representative of Insulate Britain defending attacking George Osborne (not that I'm a fan of his, TBH) on his wedding day, which was absolutely staggering. This particular representative could not have done more to hurt her cause with an intellectually superior attitude matched with an astounding lack of intellect - Dunning-Kruger made flesh:
China makes a lot of the goods bought by Europe & the USA, we've outsourced our carbon emissions to China.
I mean... we aren't FORCING them to make stuff are we?
It's still up to them what they do.. isn't it?
If China didn't make the goods that people want their emissions would be lower.
Yes but it is still their choice to do it - they aren't making the goods that people want out of the goodness of their hearts are they? It's not a charitable endeavour.
China are not just innocent bystanders in this situation and it really boils my pee when people try to mitigate or justify their ridiculously high emission rates as if they don't have a choice in the matter. They do.
China makes a lot of the goods bought by Europe & the USA, we've outsourced our carbon emissions to China.
I absolutely agree. However, given that we've effectively entered another cold war (read up on e.g the competition for rare earth metals, move by China to ban their export to the US and plans by the US to end dependency on China for their supply), we are beginning to see the start of a more self dependent approach by the US that will drive re-industrialisation in order to address this issue on the grounds of national security and to win the trade war which is starting to be waged between the two.
The silver lining is that we in the west have more advanced technologies and existing legal requirements that will allow this to be done in a 'greener' fashion. After all, technology is the key to the climate change problem. Cleaner, more efficient and greener technologies will hopefully emerge which will be successful...as long as they aren't too expensive, that is.
The language was ‘China could not give less of a shit’. The question was why do they bother with solar farms in China?
And I answered your question; it makes money. I suppose it also looks good as a way to appear to the less astute that they are doing something to address the issue (ahem).
But if you think that it ranks remotely high up the list of Xi's priorities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
A brief summary of his top ambitions would be:
1. Stop the Chinese economy tanking due to a number of factors, not least a ticking demographic timebomb which could finish them. 2. Get hold of Taiwan 3. Try and usurp US hegemony of control over international trade (for which he is going to need to build a much, much, bigger navy and invest trillions into the 'belt and road' project to build alternative trade routes, which may cause problems with point 1 above).
A couple of short-to-medium-range flights every year or two absolutely disqualify me from having any sort of opinion, that's for sure. Exactly the same as those who take multiple long-range flights a year, or own Humvees and drag their huge-in-every-sense family about in them everywhere.
Have you even met eco-warrior types? I have. Not only do they recycle everything, they compost their food waste, avoid plastics, make their own toothpaste etc. These people not only exist but they walk the walk
You don't have to be an eco-warrior to make a contribution. You can carbon offset air flights and your car fuel usage. You can reduce your red meat consumption. You can try and avoid single-use plastic. You can insulate your home and if you haven't already convert you lighting to LED. There are countless other measures that we can take as individuals and although the resultant CO2 reduction may be relatively negligible, collectively it will become increasingly significant as more people make an effort.
Alternatively we can shrug, ignore it and mumble something along the lines of "we've all got to die sometime".
I'm drawing a pension now and the advancing years makes me more aware of my mortality, something that I didn't confront twenty or more years ago. If anything age has made me more conscious of the climate change issue and my minor efforts to counteract it are motivated by the future prospects for my Grandchildren which at the moment look very bleak.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post but until change is directed and paid for by government the changes we collectively make are although worthwhile not enough to save us from the awaiting catastrophe. Make no mistake we’re doomed.
and where does that money originate?
the sooner we all make all those individual minor improvements to our conduct, the gentler the impact of the grand macro level revolution will be
all these things are under the general heading of "trying not to be an arsehole" not much of an imposition really is it?
Most people in this country who don’t already live in a dwelling that is well insulated, new boiler (ish). New double glazing and front door can’t afford to upgrade and make the changes required. Some in the poorest housing stock can’t afford to eat properly. There needs to be green initiatives to upgrade all homes and that money has to come from central government. Ask half the population if they’re changing their lightbulbs to LED and they would laugh. It’s not being an arsehole not to have the money to make the necessary changes.
The language was ‘China could not give less of a shit’. The question was why do they bother with solar farms in China?
And I answered your question; it makes money. I suppose it also looks good as a way to appear to the less astute that they are doing something to address the issue (ahem).
But if you think that it ranks remotely high up the list of Xi's priorities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
A brief summary of his top ambitions would be:
1. Stop the Chinese economy tanking due to a number of factors, not least a ticking demographic timebomb which could finish them. 2. Get hold of Taiwan 3. Try and usurp US hegemony of control over international trade (for which he is going to need to build a much, much, bigger navy and invest trillions into the 'belt and road' project to build alternative trade routes, which may cause problems with point 1 above).
You're welcome.
So China has solar farms to make money and look good. The same kind of less of, or more of, a shit for UK wind turbines that make money and look good. So I take from your post that China does not give less of a shit that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What can't be said is that the two places have the same sized population.
Comments
Based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research findings on the latest climate change science , Friends of the Earth report that there is over 95% certainty that human influence is the dominant factor in warming since the mid 20th century. To put that into perspective, scientists are as certain that humans are warming the planet as they are that smoking causes cancer.
Alternatively we can shrug, ignore it and mumble something along the lines of "we've all got to die sometime".
I'm drawing a pension now and the advancing years makes me more aware of my mortality, something that I didn't confront twenty or more years ago. If anything age has made me more conscious of the climate change issue and my minor efforts to counteract it are motivated by the future prospects for my Grandchildren which at the moment look very bleak.
Obviously the Government needs to meaningfully address the issue and I’m fully aware of the consequences if they don’t.
Thats why I raised China. It has achieved more than we have with a complete absence of politicians. It has an unelected executive which makes decisions to ensure it remains in power. It can pass laws regardless of the impact on the population enforced by violence if necessary. Politicians in a democracy can only react to what the electorate will tolerate.
The wealthiest are an obvious scapegoat in the argument against consumption but the figures based on wealth tell nothing about personal consumption. How many iPhones do the wealthiest 10% have compared to the rest of the World? What impact do the wealthiest have on the consumption of food from the World's supermarkets, half of which is thrown away. Not sure what percentage of the World's consumption is comprised of luxury yachts and jets but doubt that making their purchase illegal would have much impact on global fossil fuel consumption.
Just another diversion from the truth that personal responsibility is the real issue.
Saw a poster in a shop window window yesterday that sums it up for me - "Every time you spend you cast a vote for what kind of World you want" But carry on blaming politicians and the wealthy.
Some observations:
1. Seeing anthropogenic climate change as 'arguable' is just being slippery. The effect of greenhouse gases on temperature within even a moderately closed system is inarguable. It can be demonstrated by a simple experiment involving two plastic bottles containing thermometers, one filled with CO2 and one with normal air. Next, look at a graph of CO2 emissions and how they went stratospheric (no pun intended) after the industrial revolution, roughly starting around 1750. Put the two together and it is undeniable that we are warming the planet, the only question is to what extent.
2. Even if everyone in the UK went back to a stone-age lifestyle, it would make very little difference to the above effect due to much more populated countries actually increasing their emissions as they seek to (understandably) increase their standard of living to match western norms. We beat ourselves up about it constantly, but countries like China could not give less of a shit - somewhat of a problem if we are to address the issue at all in any significant manner.
3. Should we all attempt to personally minimise our emissions? I think so, but we have to draw the line somewhere, which will once again lead to disagreements as to where exactly that line should be. You could recycle, use eco alternatives, adopt a vegan diet etc., but as soon as you board an airplane then you have effectively made all of your other previous noble efforts statistically insignificant. If we really want to make a significant change, then we should tax the living shit out of air travel to the point where it becomes as rare as it once was. This, of course, like any green tax (ULEZ, cough, cough) means that only the rich would be able to afford to travel, but to pretend that cheap air travel is not a ridiculous anomaly in countries signed up to climate change agreements is just dumb. It is industrial scale subsidised carbon emission, completely at odds with any policy aimed at reducing emission.
4. To the above end, if you are one of those posh types that are currently gluing yourself to roads or disrupting sports events and you don't use air travel, then I have a certain level of respect for you. If you do, then you're just another eco-hypocrite, as is anyone who virtue signals their support for JSO, lectures others on their lifestyles and still uses air travel.
5. Do we need to move on from oil? Of course, but it will take a while given our lack of cheap alternatives to the by-products of petroleum and their ubiquitous presence in so many products from plastic to pharmaceuticals. So the protestors are right that we need to do so, but there are ways and ways of raising this issue and they have been pretty dumb in terms of strategy - they have probably hurt their cause more than helping it in terms of public support. I mean, disrupting people going about their daily business is guaranteed to piss them off, and I am personally surprised that more of the self-righteous dopes have not been filled in by Joe Public for deliberately choosing the public to target rather than specific companies or those in power who may not have been doing enough to address the issue.
Why JSO may seem to make unintelligent decisions and this puzzled me, until last night I saw this interview (From 'This Morning' with Ed Balls etc.) with a representative of Insulate Britain defending attacking George Osborne (not that I'm a fan of his, TBH) on his wedding day, which was absolutely staggering. This particular representative could not have done more to hurt her cause with an intellectually superior attitude matched with an astounding lack of intellect - Dunning-Kruger made flesh:
No wonder it's a hard sell.
If China could not give less of a shit why do they have them?
the sooner we all make all those individual minor improvements to our conduct, the gentler the impact of the grand macro level revolution will be
all these things are under the general heading of "trying not to be an arsehole"
not much of an imposition really is it?
Solar plant in sunny place = free money, why wouldn't they build one? It's interesting the bigger picture is being ignored:
'This report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) takes a closer look at China’s permitting of new coal power plants in 2022, the possible implications for China’s climate commitments, and provides policy recommendations.
Coal power plant permitting, construction starts and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. The coal power capacity starting construction in China was six times as large as that in all of the rest of the world combined.'
Key findings of the report
You're right; that Xi Jinping is like the Chinese version of Swampy.
It's still up to them what they do.. isn't it?
Yes but it is still their choice to do it - they aren't making the goods that people want out of the goodness of their hearts are they? It's not a charitable endeavour.
China are not just innocent bystanders in this situation and it really boils my pee when people try to mitigate or justify their ridiculously high emission rates as if they don't have a choice in the matter. They do.
The silver lining is that we in the west have more advanced technologies and existing legal requirements that will allow this to be done in a 'greener' fashion. After all, technology is the key to the climate change problem. Cleaner, more efficient and greener technologies will hopefully emerge which will be successful...as long as they aren't too expensive, that is.
But if you think that it ranks remotely high up the list of Xi's priorities, then I have a bridge to sell you.
A brief summary of his top ambitions would be:
1. Stop the Chinese economy tanking due to a number of factors, not least a ticking demographic timebomb which could finish them.
2. Get hold of Taiwan
3. Try and usurp US hegemony of control over international trade (for which he is going to need to build a much, much, bigger navy and invest trillions into the 'belt and road' project to build alternative trade routes, which may cause problems with point 1 above).
You're welcome.
The same kind of less of, or more of, a shit for UK wind turbines that make money and look good.
So I take from your post that China does not give less of a shit that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
What can't be said is that the two places have the same sized population.