I’ve not read all the previous posts so apologies if it’s already been covered but I do have a couple questions for those that know, one about the new mine in that why do we actually need it if the UK seems to not actually generate a lot of electricity from coal these days ?; and is there still a lot of solar/wind farms that are still not being connected to the UK grid ?
For the first, my post at 7.21 gives the case made to justify it, not that I accept it. For your second question, I can't help you.
Edit -the mine is going to cost est. £165 million to get started.
Last time I logged onto this thread was page 6, thought i'd see how it had progressed, and yes just as I thought, glad i skipped the last 20 pages, HoC anyone..🤷♂️
I saw a picture of a German lorry driver almost run a sitting protest over. Utterly needless. I’m sure he had somewhere to go and I know haulage is part of point in time supply chain etc, but you can’t be running someone over and risking causing serious injury just because it aggravates you.
JSO have invited a lot of criticism onto themselves with their drastic action, but when I see videos of people losing the plot with them, I think it’s a pretty pathetic response. You could take that rationale into anything that winds you up/you don’t agree with, why are JSO protestors fair game for physical violence
It depends on your circumstances. If I was taking a family member to hospital jn an emergency I'm sure I'd not react in a polite manner.
I understand. I’m sure there’s been examples of that throughout their disruption- I think it’s reaching the point where as aggravating as it is, people have just decided they can be physically have a go, because it’s justified in their opinion. I just don’t think these people, however much of a nuisance they are, deserve to be almost run over by a lorry
Of course they don't deserve to be run over by a lorry. But if in an emergency situation they refuse to move I have no problem with people dragging them off the road.
Its a shame the details of the protestors isn't made public so when one of their big events in their lives comes along, we go and protest and mess their day up. I am sure they will be sympathetic towards you.
Last time I logged onto this thread was page 6, thought i'd see how it had progressed, and yes just as I thought, glad i skipped the last 20 pages, HoC anyone..🤷♂️
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Overpopulation is the number one cause of environmental and O-Zone damage. Reduce the number of people, planet heals and forests can regrow as the farm land is no longer required.
If we all went vegan this would expedite this, but first you would have to deforest more of the planet to make more vegans... so are you calling for a genocide of people, animals and insects anyway?
For those who are worried about being inconvenienced by Just Stop Oil protesters should be aware that this is nothing compared to what is likely for the UK in the coming years.
The UK and Switzerland will be the worst affected globally by a relative increase in "uncomfortably hot days" on the way, a vast new study has warned.
Let’s hope so. The moment I put the pool up, the weathers been shit
No need to panic, the Gulf Stream will soon collapse and we will share the same climate as the Aleutian Islands Alaska.
I realise that this post was made 95% tongue in cheek but in reality it makes a very good point. As the ice melts and the sea desalinates, the seas and oceans warm which is very much happening right now. We really have no idea when and how quickly weather systems and ocean currents will collapse. Our “traditional weather” if that’s a correct way of describing it is totally dependent on those systems. If to use your example the Gulf Stream were to collapse or even divert further south then this country would see climate change in very real focus. 95% plus (?) of our housing stock would be completely unsuitable for those changes. The balances are very fragile. At some point your tongue in cheek comment is almost certainly a reality.
The thing about science is that unlike maths, which is irrefutable, and religion, which is more or less set in stone, you have to allow others to try to convince you of their theories.
This man's theory is that cloud cover is not given enough importance in climate change models.
If most (or even, say a quarter) of Nobel prize winners agreed with him, then I would take him seriously.
Until then, I would go with the scientific consensus and to a lesser extent, with what I personally experience, such as very hot weeks in June.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
This is dangerous rubbish and I cannot believe that there are people who actually believe this.
Records are being made all over the world. The UK had the hottest June on record. The world had the hottest first week ever for July.
Much of Europe is in the grip of a dangerous heatwave with the highest temperatures expected to be broken this week. Floods elsewhere in the world killing hundreds.
Please open your eyes to what is happening. The rate of change is accelerating due to the action of humans.
'Dangerous rubbish'? From a Nobel Laureate. Your sciencific qualifications are what exactly? No, don't tell me. You read it in thr Guardian. What a hoot.
He's talking about reflective cloud cover regulating temperatures if I'm reading him correctly and he denies the 'narrative' that there is a climate emergency /crisis.
Maybe in his model less sun gets through to heat the Earth's surface, so mitigating the effects to some degree, but the temperatures is still on the rise isn't it, so whatever the regulatory capability of cloud cover, it isn't it enough and we are in crisis.
What we're seeing almost daily on our news screens from around the world isn't fake news, certainly not to those living though the worst effects of it. It's no use saying "Crisis. What crisis?" Of course people will want to do what they can to help and stop it getting worse, but it doesn't help having fossil fuel industry funded think tanks, of which he sits on one, trying, and seemingly convincing you, that the science is wrong.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
This is dangerous rubbish and I cannot believe that there are people who actually believe this.
Records are being made all over the world. The UK had the hottest June on record. The world had the hottest first week ever for July.
Much of Europe is in the grip of a dangerous heatwave with the highest temperatures expected to be broken this week. Floods elsewhere in the world killing hundreds.
Please open your eyes to what is happening. The rate of change is accelerating due to the action of humans.
I totally and unequivocally agree but I do wonder if the argument has now become polarised to the point of irrelevance. As much time is spent arguing as to the reasons behind why the worlds climate is changing as opposed to recognising it actually is. Now for me the evidence is so compelling that man is having a significant effect but in many respects you could say “so what”. Just embrace that climate is changing and we need to try and do something about it. If it’s completely a natural cycle of the earth heating up and cooling down, by reducing man’s “contribution” we could perhaps delay or minimise the effects. If as I believe man has tipped the balance then reducing emissions at best reverses the effects or at worst minimises the outcomes. Maybe it’s the perfect storm whereby we are experiencing cyclical change exacerbated by man. Standing on the sidelines sniping that the science supporting man made climate change yet accepting the earth is warming by dint of the evidence of our own eyes doesn’t address the fact that we need to act drastically in either scenario.
I agree with the OP although its strayed way off topic now.
The JSO protesters have achieved something if they have brought the craziness of allowing new oil and gas fields to be opened up, rather than channelling resources into renewable energy. Having brought the subject to the public's attention, they have now changed their tactics to things like throwing orange confetti, which causes no-one any harm.
The point they are making however is that opening new oil and gas fields does nothing to help the security of the UK's energy supply. It will be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Oil & Gas companies. If we really wanted to ensure security of oil and gas supplies we should, right at the start, have made the profits go back into the UK economy not global companies and had a wealth fund for the UK benefit, like they did in Norway. In a Climate Crisis opening new fields will just line the pockets of the Oil & Gas industry owners. It's too late to make oil and gas exploration for the benefit of the UK consumer, but we can make renewables the key focus for the benefit of the UK, providing new jobs and prosperity.
This is dangerous rubbish and I cannot believe that there are people who actually believe this.
Records are being made all over the world. The UK had the hottest June on record. The world had the hottest first week ever for July.
Much of Europe is in the grip of a dangerous heatwave with the highest temperatures expected to be broken this week. Floods elsewhere in the world killing hundreds.
Please open your eyes to what is happening. The rate of change is accelerating due to the action of humans.
Sure. Keep drinking the cool aid the media is feeding you. Ignore the science. Be scared all your life. Well unless you pay more tax. That'll sort it, right?
Most scientists believe there is a major problem and it's caused by mankind and mainly in the last two hundred years since the industrial revolution in the west followed by the massive populations of China and India following suit and their polluted major cities.
Scientists are an eclectic mix and it's depends on who you want to follow and believe; that was so evident during COVID. We can follow the science but we still need to be discerning what conclusion we believe in.
Also I would be interested in who funds the scientific climate deniers ? Wouldn't be oil companies by any chance 🤔
Being Green is big business and we have to accept that it not always for Altruistic reasons.
I personally believe that mankind was always only going to have a short stay on earth, we are doomed because there is no Planet B.
The selected few of the Jehovah's witnesses will be fine as they have a new planet to go to !
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
In the name of Climate Change how much are we personally willing to give up? How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad? Has anyone ditched their car for a bike? Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need? How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?
I agree with the OP although its strayed way off topic now.
The JSO protesters have achieved something if they have brought the craziness of allowing new oil and gas fields to be opened up, rather than channelling resources into renewable energy. Having brought the subject to the public's attention, they have now changed their tactics to things like throwing orange confetti, which causes no-one any harm.
The point they are making however is that opening new oil and gas fields does nothing to help the security of the UK's energy supply. It will be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Oil & Gas companies. If we really wanted to ensure security of oil and gas supplies we should, right at the start, have made the profits go back into the UK economy not global companies and had a wealth fund for the UK benefit, like they did in Norway. In a Climate Crisis opening new fields will just line the pockets of the Oil & Gas industry owners. It's too late to make oil and gas exploration for the benefit of the UK consumer, but we can make renewables the key focus for the benefit of the UK, providing new jobs and prosperity.
As usual more blah, blah, blah without addressing my point. And yes although throwing confetti causes no harm it was at a private event and ruined someone’s wedding. Unacceptable in my opinion.
Deforestation for meat production is a direct increase of CO2 and decrease of Oxygen. Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
Why fast food specifically?
I would reckon because of the volumes and reach of fast food businesses. You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Not following. What consequence or outcome are you expecting the protest to have? What would the request of these outlets be?
I said that deforestation is an environmental problem. Deforestation for the meat industry. One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits. The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
That’s a lot of people’s jobs you want to change if you target fast food. Not sure how you would balance that all financially and socially. Nor why you wouldn’t be better targeting farmers say or supermarkets.
We need to be realistic about any protests.
I think health education including diet is getting better generally.
We are very likely all going to change familiar ways of life faced with the climate crisis.
So no need to put peoples jobs at risk in the meantime then?
I was thinking that cooking a veggie burger would be the same job as cooking a meat one. And a tree planting job would be the same as deforestation.
Comments
Environmental protestors could target fast food businesses.
So I can't see what you're trying to achieve on this thread.
Edit -the mine is going to cost est. £165 million to get started.
I think she probably spiked it.
If we all went vegan this would expedite this, but first you would have to deforest more of the planet to make more vegans... so are you calling for a genocide of people, animals and insects anyway?
This man's theory is that cloud cover is not given enough importance in climate change models.
If most (or even, say a quarter) of Nobel prize winners agreed with him, then I would take him seriously.
Until then, I would go with the scientific consensus and to a lesser extent, with what I personally experience, such as very hot weeks in June.
You never know, one unintended consequences and side benefit might even be an improvement in public health and a decrease in obesity.
Maybe in his model less sun gets through to heat the Earth's surface, so mitigating the effects to some degree, but the temperatures is still on the rise isn't it, so whatever the regulatory capability of cloud cover, it isn't it enough and we are in crisis.
What we're seeing almost daily on our news screens from around the world isn't fake news, certainly not to those living though the worst effects of it. It's no use saying "Crisis. What crisis?" Of course people will want to do what they can to help and stop it getting worse, but it doesn't help having fossil fuel industry funded think tanks, of which he sits on one, trying, and seemingly convincing you, that the science is wrong.
One outcome for protests might be to raise awareness of the problem. A lot of people know about the fossil fuel issue, I reckon not so many know about the issues caused by our eating habits.
The outlets might create more attractive non meat offerings, and decrease the meat ones, like the double burgers and suchlike. Maybe make them twice the price, three times even, to fund a sincere and realistic reversal of deforestation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12302607/German-Just-Stop-Oil-glue-hands-airport-runways-halt-flights.html
The point they are making however is that opening new oil and gas fields does nothing to help the security of the UK's energy supply. It will be sold on the open market for the benefit of the Oil & Gas companies. If we really wanted to ensure security of oil and gas supplies we should, right at the start, have made the profits go back into the UK economy not global companies and had a wealth fund for the UK benefit, like they did in Norway. In a Climate Crisis opening new fields will just line the pockets of the Oil & Gas industry owners. It's too late to make oil and gas exploration for the benefit of the UK consumer, but we can make renewables the key focus for the benefit of the UK, providing new jobs and prosperity.
Most scientists believe there is a major problem and it's caused by mankind and mainly in the last two hundred years since the industrial revolution in the west followed by the massive populations of China and India following suit and their polluted major cities.
Scientists are an eclectic mix and it's depends on who you want to follow and believe; that was so evident during COVID.
We can follow the science but we still need to be discerning what conclusion we believe in.
Also I would be interested in who funds the scientific climate deniers ? Wouldn't be oil companies by any chance 🤔
Being Green is big business and we have to accept that it not always for Altruistic reasons.
I personally believe that mankind was always only going to have a short stay on earth, we are doomed because there is no Planet B.
The selected few of the Jehovah's witnesses will be fine as they have a new planet to go to !
Have a nice day- while you can 👍
How many on this thread have given up travelling abroad?
Has anyone ditched their car for a bike?
Reduced food intake , stopped buying stuff they don't need?
How often do we wash our clothes, do we need to shower , bath everyday.