Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?2 -
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.4 -
I find the whole subject of geothermal activity drivers in relation to climate change fascinating. I certainly think we're missing a trick not enhancing more geothermal heat as an alternative energy source, but have no idea of the cost / complexities involved in doing that.queensland_addick said:
I found the point that Bill Maher made during his monologue that 14 years of attempting to reduce emissions by driving Toyota Prius's around, was wiped out by just one wildfire.swordfish said:This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone, but if we want the thread to stay open, we should beware letting it become a catch all political one, no matter the temptation with other avenues for debating politics having been closed off.
To steer us back, is it the view of some that we shouldn't be spending time and money proactively trying to mitigate the effects of climate change? And is it fair to call those who hold that view 'deniers' given that no one posting here believes the climate isn't changing?
As I understand it, their denial is in believing we can stop it, regardless of the causes. We can try, and I believe it's incumbent on us to, but success isn't guaranteed. Those who doubt our ability to actually reverse what we started, and the rest of us, aren't seeing the evidence that we can do more than reduce our emissions. But that's because it takes time for the effects of our actions to filter through, very long periods of time, and what is being done isn't enough and not being done fast enough.
Our climate change scientists theoretical outcomes, based on what they've learned to date, ought to be used to drive policy decisions, but that isn't happening in a timely manner due to vested interests protecting their profit margins, and public resistance to impositions on their freedoms.
Similar would probably be true, to an even greater extent, by a volcanic eruption.
The point being that nature is far more powerful than anything mankind can do.
Sadly I think it will be resolved, but it will probably be resolved by an asteroid, rather than anything we can do.
To answer your question, no we shouldn't be labelling such people who think it's beyond the control of mankind "deniers" but unfortunately that's what one side of Politics loves to do.
A bit like how anyone who wants to stop the boats or limit immigration, gets labelled "Racist" by the same protagonists.
From my perspective, making our air cleaner, and our oceans cleaner, is a great thing that we should all be striving for, regardless of whether we think we are having any impact on slowing global warming or not.
Anyway here's another NASA link which I found interesting on what volcanoes have to do with climate change.
What do volcanoes have to do with climate change? - NASA Science
4 -
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce a environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.4 -
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.1 -
I should have used sides of the debate rather than points of view. For example, there will be people that say that the LA fires are all as a consequence of climate change. Some people will say that the fires were started by arsonists and that the Santa Ana winds are a phenomenon that have been around for years. I’m interested in the debate and both points of view as to what caused the fires.Chizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.2 -
stop_shouting said:
I should have used sides of the debate rather than points of view. For example, there will be people that say that the LA fires are all as a consequence of climate change. Some people will say that the fires were started by arsonists and that the Santa Ana winds are a phenomenon that have been around for years. I’m interested in the debate and both points of view as to what caused the fires.Chizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.It could be any combination of those. Yes the Santa Ana winds are a known phenomenon but I don't know if they are getting stronger - trends would need to be looked at to determine whether or not there are climactic changes that are making them progressively stronger and/or more frequent. There is no question that Southern California has experienced one of the driest 12 months on record (see this link https://ggweather.com/seasonal_rain.htm) but again trends would need to be looked at to see if 2024 was an outlier or the climate is clearly trending hotter. It could have been started deliberately or spontaneously - not sure we will ever know that.As I said, trends would need to be examined but I believe it is almost certain that the continuous rise in global temperature is due to the shit we are putting in the atmosphere as a result of industrialisation - that trend is clearly established. There does appear to be more frequent freak weather events occurring globally.However I think it's fair to conclude that the recent fires in SC were not started as a result of satanic rituals, or started in tunnels used to ferry children to awaiting paedophilles as some of the crank social media conspiracies have been spouting.
2 -
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".2 -
Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
2 -
King Charles will need to consult six different organisations before he can make any changes to the 71 gas-powered lanterns in Buckingham Palace's courtyards.
The King is looking to refit the lanterns with new mantles to hold LED bulbs, which will make them more energy efficient.
But before any work can be done, he needs to seek the views of Historic England, The Metropolitan Police, the Gardens Trust, the Royal Parks and the National Amenity Societies, before going to Westminster Council.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
In this way it's very similar to the Sugar tax. The producers are informed that their product will be more expensive if they do not re-engineer it with less sugar.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
I think it's an idea worth careful consideration; although, like all ideas that involve tax, there will be very many, noisy, powerful, well-funded nay-sayers.1 -
Chizz said:
In this way it's very similar to the Sugar tax. The producers are informed that their product will be more expensive if they do not re-engineer it with less sugar.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
I think it's an idea worth careful consideration; although, like all ideas that involve tax, there will be very many, noisy, powerful, well-funded nay-sayers.
No - you tax the producers of energy at a ridiculously high rate but give them the option of a standard corporation tax rate if they invest the difference in renewables.
4 -
Ands ensure that 'renewables' actually means 'renewables', not the laughable spectre of 'carbon credits'bobmunro said:Chizz said:
In this way it's very similar to the Sugar tax. The producers are informed that their product will be more expensive if they do not re-engineer it with less sugar.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
I think it's an idea worth careful consideration; although, like all ideas that involve tax, there will be very many, noisy, powerful, well-funded nay-sayers.
No - you tax the producers of energy at a ridiculously high rate but give them the option of a standard corporation tax rate if they invest the difference in renewables.7 -
That would work. But I also like the idea that any supplier of energy has to apply different tariffs to the energy they supply: energy from fossil fuels charged with a very high rate of tax, energy derived from renewables zero-rated. That way the market - ie all consumers in the UK - will move towards the suppliers who provide renewables.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
In this way it's very similar to the Sugar tax. The producers are informed that their product will be more expensive if they do not re-engineer it with less sugar.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
I think it's an idea worth careful consideration; although, like all ideas that involve tax, there will be very many, noisy, powerful, well-funded nay-sayers.
No - you tax the producers of energy at a ridiculously high rate but give them the option of a standard corporation tax rate if they invest the difference in renewables.1 -
World Leaders will be long gone before it starts having a major effect on the planet/population, so nothing will ever get done at a macro level.
Money over everything after all. You'll see it a lot in the next 4 years.3 -
Definitely agree about carbon credits, it's crazy that companies can pay someone else, so that they can carry on producing greenhouse gases.Leroy Ambrose said:
Ands ensure that 'renewables' actually means 'renewables', not the laughable spectre of 'carbon credits'bobmunro said:Chizz said:
In this way it's very similar to the Sugar tax. The producers are informed that their product will be more expensive if they do not re-engineer it with less sugar.bobmunro said:Chizz said:
I agree it isn't likely! But I think it's the sort of radical thinking that's required to make a proper effect. Sugar's taxed and it results in products being made with less sugar. The same could easily be engineered in terms of fossil fuels: if tax is used to disincentivise the consumption of fossil fuels in favour of renewables, then surely that's a good thing.ShootersHillGuru said:
Sugar and alcohol are largely lifestyle choices whereas taxing fossil fuels would only make everything more expensive for everyone, where it’s already very hard for people to keep warm in winter. I don’t think that particular part of your post is either likely or desirableChizz said:
@stop_shouting suggested there were "both points of view".blackpool72 said:
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed.Chizz said:
Well if everyone agrees that it's man made and it's an emergency and it requires significant, immediate action, that's a very good thing. I suspect there are some that's still refuse to see it that way, sadly.blackpool72 said:
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real.Chizz said:
What are "both points of view"?stop_shouting said:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.Chizz said:queensland_addick said:
You are joking of course🤣cantersaddick said:
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.Rob said:Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:https://youtu.be/gQbM5JSVpWE?si=QqfCaI5Kjzxwg9mC
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Are there two points of view as to how it should be reversed?
I genuinely think there are hundreds of views tbh.
The problem is getting governments around the world to come to some sort of agreement as to how to implement them.
Most of the time they can't even agree on the colour of shit.
In terms of solutions, I think governments should tax fossil fuels very, very much more heavily than they are now; the tax should be hypothecated and used by governments to invest in renewables, thereby driving down the costs of zero- or low-emission energy; tax breaks should be given to any company for each year that it lowers its emissions, whatever industry it's in; mandate the use of solar panels and/or wind turbines as a planning requirement on any new home, office, hospital, sports stadium and factory; implement carbon pricing (in a similar way to how sugar and alcohol are taxed); and launch large-scale reforestation programmes.
These would deliver either an immediate benefit to the environment and/or a shift in thinking towards renewables.
And I would introduce one more programme that, while it wouldn't immediately benefit the environment, it would produce a long-term environment-positive effect. I would introduce an environment school qualification exam to be taken at the age of 15 or 16. And when a pupil passes that exam, they receive a permanent (small) income tax discount for every year they're in work. It would encourage learning about the environment and it would make those with the qualification more employable.
It could be called the "red tax", soothing the hurty feelings of those that complain about "green tax".
Tax the producers, not the consumers. Most consumers do not have a choice.
I think it's an idea worth careful consideration; although, like all ideas that involve tax, there will be very many, noisy, powerful, well-funded nay-sayers.
No - you tax the producers of energy at a ridiculously high rate but give them the option of a standard corporation tax rate if they invest the difference in renewables.
The next four years are going to be a disaster for the planet.4 -
Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.9 -
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.2 -
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.4 -
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.6 - Sponsored links:
-
You tell mecantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.0 -
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.3 -
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.6 -
As has many things - mobile phones, TVs, Cars, Clothing, Overseas travel, Extravagant Weddings / Parties, Computers, etc etccantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
We have rampant consumerism across all sectors that is unhelpful.That needs to be addressed generally.5 -
Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.cantersaddick said:
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
8 -
Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment.Redskin said:
Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.cantersaddick said:
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
So yes do exactly as I do please.8 -
Equally we are allowed to have a conversation about possible courses of action that would impact on climate change without necessarily having to be already doing them.
Though as said I have taken a lot of actions in my life to try and make a difference on climate change.
What exactly have you done @Redskin3 -
Redskin said:
Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.cantersaddick said:
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
9 -
That's more of less where I'm at, but I try to spread it out so I consume smaller portions over several days. Definitely eating less than half of what I used to, and seldom red meat. Still have two to three meat free days each week thoughcantersaddick said:
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
The vegetarian haggis I tried yesterday was a bit of an acquired taste. Better than I was expecting, but my wife didn't think much of it.1 -
But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases.cantersaddick said:
Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment.Redskin said:
Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.cantersaddick said:
I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).Redskin said:
So, you don't eat meat?cantersaddick said:
In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?blackpool72 said:
That's exactly what we are doing.Leuth said:
That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms?ken_shabby said:Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'
We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years.
I know you don't like this response but that's the reality.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
So yes do exactly as I do please.The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable.Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc.
Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted.3
