Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Saying that only discourages people form acting, thinking 'well why should I bother?' Doing something can only be better than doing nothing, and I'm not aware of anyone posting on here who's claimed they can do no more. However, someone on here did post that no one here was making changes to their lifestyles directly in an attempt to combat climate change. He was quickly dispelled of his delusion. And, if only those who could do no more were to post suggestions on the changes that we could all make, not diktats as some seem to have interpreted them, then the thread might look a bit sparse.ShootersHillGuru said:Nobody knows when the tipping point for climate recovery is going to be reached but I’m guessing it’s a lot closer than would make us feel comfortable. It seems to me that what the world is doing at present collectively isn’t enough. Yes it’s great that many of us are making small changes but for everyone that is, there are probably more that aren’t. In the grand scheme it’s pissing in the wind really. Banning boilers and ICE cars are all working towards a solution but not enough quickly enough. Working towards net zero is a fine ambition but 2050 isn’t quickly enough. Look at how the weather has changed in the last 25 years. What’s it going to be like in another 25. I think there are two possible outcomes. We fail miserably and mankind as we know it is fucked or we find a technological solution as yet unknown and we all can sigh with relief. I doubt our current efforts and timescales are going to cut it.2 -
And their ingenuity ?ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.
Who was responsible for making the electric car go mainstream, the Powerwall, Starlink?
A clue, he's one of the people you hate and he's now been welcomed into having a major influence around Mar a Lago.
Who's to say that he wont, at some stage in the future, make a car powered by hydrogen, go mainstream?
Imagine that, all the vehicles in the world powered by a source whereby the only byproduct is water! What kind of a difference would that make?
Maybe hating such people isn't such a good idea, because it's people like them who may just have the answers and the ability to bring them to the masses, whereas people like us, cannot.
2 -
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?2 -
Not if you wash them by hand in the local river. It's the least some on here should do to offset their meat consumption.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?3 -
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.6 -
What? And clog up freshwater rivers with remnants of sirloin steak and kethcup? No thank you.SporadicAddick said:
Not if you wash them by hand in the local river. It's the least some on here should do to offset their meat consumption.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?2 -
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.9 -
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.Chizz said:
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Totally counterproductive.2 -
It needs to be a collective effort.
A feeling of were all in this together.
It can be done, restrictions were put on all our lives when covid hit.
I'd love to see a newsflash this afternoon.
Keir appears on the tele, and states
We can't control the rest of the world, but the UK is taking the lead on climate change.
He then announces a list of everything that to be rationed.
Yes Clb74, you can have that bath every day.
The wife will have the hump though as they'll be no water for her to brush her teeth.
Kids will have a melt down when the pads out of battery.
You did leave all the lights on kids.
Why we got to walk 2 miles Dad to see nan?
We used all the petrol up this month on the trip to the seaside.
Why we got to share a 40g bag of crisps between the 4 of us?
I had 3 bags last night and there's no more till next month.
I always remember 1 teacher at school.
1 kid messed about you'd all top up staying behind.
All In it together and hardly any kids messed about.3 - Sponsored links:
-
It's 2025 and we don't have to think0
-
So you wash them in a small amount of cold water? Otherwise you are using power and a lot of water.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.2 -
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If Keir actually announced that, everyone would emigrate, including me.clb74 said:It needs to be a collective effort.
A feeling of were all in this together.
It can be done, restrictions were put on all our lives when covid hit.
I'd love to see a newsflash this afternoon.
Keir appears on the tele, and states
We can't control the rest of the world, but the UK is taking the lead on climate change.
He then announces a list of everything that to be rationed.
Yes Clb74, you can have that bath every day.
The wife will have the hump though as they'll be no water for her to brush her teeth.
Kids will have a melt down when the pads out of battery.
You did leave all the lights on kids.
Why we got to walk 2 miles Dad to see nan?
We used all the petrol up this month on the trip to the seaside.
Why we got to share a 40g bag of crisps between the 4 of us?
I had 3 bags last night and there's no more till next month.
I always remember 1 teacher at school.
1 kid messed about you'd all top up staying behind.
All In it together and hardly any kids messed about.
It's the job of government to improve people's quality of life, not make the newer generations poorer than the ones before.
Even if the UK did produce 0 emissions, it would literally make no difference. Not to say that we shouldn't strive for clean energy, but the pace of the transition needs to be more measured so that we're not throwing people into energy poverty like we are now.0 -
What's worse, a full dishwasher running on eco mode, using green energy sources, or using a gas powered boiler to heat up water for a bowl full of washing up water? Because one of those uses more energy, and more water, than the otherStu_of_Kunming said:
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.1 -
I really think more effort is needed on the technoloigal solution. I remember David Attenborough saying, probably over 10 years go, that we should set up an international taskforce of the best brains in the world to look at technological solutions. For instance the amount of energy from the sun is astronomical. Just catching asn iota in cold countries with inefficient current technology doesn't cut it.ShootersHillGuru said:Nobody knows when the tipping point for climate recovery is going to be reached but I’m guessing it’s a lot closer than would make us feel comfortable. It seems to me that what the world is doing at present collectively isn’t enough. Yes it’s great that many of us are making small changes but for everyone that is, there are probably more that aren’t. In the grand scheme it’s pissing in the wind really. Banning boilers and ICE cars are all working towards a solution but not enough quickly enough. Working towards net zero is a fine ambition but 2050 isn’t quickly enough. Look at how the weather has changed in the last 25 years. What’s it going to be like in another 25. I think there are two possible outcomes. We fail miserably and mankind as we know it is fucked or we find a technological solution as yet unknown and we all can sigh with relief. I doubt our current efforts and timescales are going to cut it.1 -
Modern dishwashers use less electricity to heat water than running a tap.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.1 -
This is just diddling around talking shit.
Do what you can to reduce your own energy and product use. Help others to do the same.2 -
If you were only referring to washing dishes in cold water, then you'd have a point. But heating water to wash dishes uses more energy than heating water in a well-insulated, full washing machine. Either way, washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As my hands don't require any electric at all and your washing machine does, we'll just put you in the 'let others make the changes' column.Chizz said:
Using a fully-loaded dishwasher is likely less harmful to the environment (energy consumption, water use) than washing dishes by hand. FWIW.Stu_of_Kunming said:
As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved.ME14addick said:How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.
Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.
I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars?
Keep preaching and putting others down though.
Absolutely not preaching - just adding a bit of clarification. Some people think that stopping the use of dishwashers would ameliorate the effects of fossil fuel burning. I don't think it would.2 -
How long would it take for energy benefit of using a dishwasher to compensate for that used in the making of it, taking the entire component supply line into account. The infrastructure that simply supplies the hot water has other practical uses too.1
-
The race for Space is going to be the game changer. We will see huge and rapid technology leaps on the back of that which will have commercial use across the whole spectrum of our daily lives. In 10 years time we’ll probably look back on the move to electric cars in the same way we currently look back on DVDs etcShootersHillGuru said:Nobody knows when the tipping point for climate recovery is going to be reached but I’m guessing it’s a lot closer than would make us feel comfortable. It seems to me that what the world is doing at present collectively isn’t enough. Yes it’s great that many of us are making small changes but for everyone that is, there are probably more that aren’t. In the grand scheme it’s pissing in the wind really. Banning boilers and ICE cars are all working towards a solution but not enough quickly enough. Working towards net zero is a fine ambition but 2050 isn’t quickly enough. Look at how the weather has changed in the last 25 years. What’s it going to be like in another 25. I think there are two possible outcomes. We fail miserably and mankind as we know it is fucked or we find a technological solution as yet unknown and we all can sigh with relief. I doubt our current efforts and timescales are going to cut it.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Nobody is going to stop using their dishwater for climate change ffs.1
-
I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.0
-
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)cafcnick1992 said:
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.Chizz said:
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Totally counterproductive.
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.2 -
When that happens, those people are hypocrites. I can't say I've seen many posting about making changes on here that aren't making changes themselves, but even if they weren't, would that be a reason for others not to do you think?Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.0 -
A dishwasher with 2,000 kWh manufacturing energy, saving 200 kWh annually would take ten years. A high-efficiency dishwasher with 1,500 kWh manufacturing energy, saving 300 kWh annually would take five years.swordfish said:How long would it take for energy benefit of using a dishwasher to compensate for that used in the making of it, taking the entire component supply line into account. The infrastructure that simply supplies the hot water has other practical uses too.Dishwashers often last 10–15 years, making the energy savings worthwhile after the break-even point. If powered by renewable energy, the environmental benefits might be achieved sooner. Running full loads and using eco-modes maximises savings. Varying energy grids, water heating systems, and supply chain efficiencies can influence these numbers.2 -
I said it’s great that many of us are making small changes. Recognising that in my opinion it’s largely insignificant in the greater scheme of things is reality. So many things that would be beneficial and could and should be done are not. The really positive changes must be authority led. Look at food packaging for example. Yes it’s better than it was but it’s still ridiculous the amount of plastics and unnecessary packing we have to dispose of. I can try and do my little bit but just like with plastic straws it has to come in the main from the top. Anyone discouraged by thinking their small contributions are pointless wasn’t really “encouraged” in the first place.swordfish said:
Saying that only discourages people form acting, thinking 'well why should I bother?' Doing something can only be better than doing nothing, and I'm not aware of anyone posting on here who's claimed they can do no more. However, someone on here did post that no one here was making changes to their lifestyles directly in an attempt to combat climate change. He was quickly dispelled of his delusion. And, if only those who could do no more were to post suggestions on the changes that we could all make, not diktats as some seem to have interpreted them, then the thread might look a bit sparse.ShootersHillGuru said:Nobody knows when the tipping point for climate recovery is going to be reached but I’m guessing it’s a lot closer than would make us feel comfortable. It seems to me that what the world is doing at present collectively isn’t enough. Yes it’s great that many of us are making small changes but for everyone that is, there are probably more that aren’t. In the grand scheme it’s pissing in the wind really. Banning boilers and ICE cars are all working towards a solution but not enough quickly enough. Working towards net zero is a fine ambition but 2050 isn’t quickly enough. Look at how the weather has changed in the last 25 years. What’s it going to be like in another 25. I think there are two possible outcomes. We fail miserably and mankind as we know it is fucked or we find a technological solution as yet unknown and we all can sigh with relief. I doubt our current efforts and timescales are going to cut it.2 -
Noble ambitions sure, but a very hard sell when (1) people are very used to cheap travel and cheap food in the UK, (2) people have very little disposable income and are sick of prices going up, and (3) other countries like the USA and Canada have declared war on net zero initiatives and are about to flood North America with cheap energy.Chizz said:
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)cafcnick1992 said:
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.Chizz said:
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Totally counterproductive.
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.
Number (3) in particular scares me. The disparity in wealth between us and the Americans is getting worse and a lot of it is politically driven.2 -
Yet you are the one who always asks certain posters what they would do.Chizz said:
This is a really good point. And it's why I think it's better to discuss "what should governments do?", rather than "what are you going to do?"Huskaris said:I think we are very good at saying what other people should be doing, and not very good at doing it ourselves.4 -
You're absolutely right on this. It demonstrates an unbelievable lack of leadership from those nations.cafcnick1992 said:
Noble ambitions sure, but a very hard sell when (1) people are very used to cheap travel and cheap food in the UK, (2) people have very little disposable income and are sick of prices going up, and (3) other countries like the USA and Canada have declared war on net zero initiatives and are about to flood North America with cheap energy.Chizz said:
My point was in reference to the suggestion (which I emboldened) that "solving" the over consumption of beef and travel means "we'll be fine". No-one has ever suggested that, as far as I can tell. (Unless anyone cares to say they do think this..?)cafcnick1992 said:
He does have a point though. Wood-burning stoves have massively increased in popularity in a response to net-zero ambitions raising the price of energy.Chizz said:
Literally no-one, anywhere, thinks this.queensland_addick said:
I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.Siv_in_Norfolk said:@Redskin - You said:
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
‐--------------------
On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground.
I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives.
I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions) are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices?
This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.
Everyone agrees that Climate change is influenced by the actions of mankind.
Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.
In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.
Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.
Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.
Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc
An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.
Totally counterproductive.
If you have to illustrate that combating climate change is a dichotomy, by misrepresenting one "side" of that dichotomy, then you're probably wrong to think, in the first place, that there are "two sides". It's footballification, red in tooth and claw.
There are lots of solutions, none of which is the silver bullet, but some of which, when combined, can halt the crisis.
My view is that reducing beef consumption, lowering the carbon cost of travel, using taxes to "nudge" consumers - and producers - into better actions, reducing fossil fuel consumption, driving down the cost of extracting and consuming renewable energy and switching from fossil fuel powered private and public transport to renewables would all have positive effects, hopefully ameliorating the harm we've already done. But I think some "solutions" - such as attempting to reduce the global human population - are so far fetched and would require so many decades to have any measurable effect - that they should be off the table.
No-one will agree with everything I have said, but lots of people will agree with bits of it. In that way, it's very definitely not a "two sides" thing.
Number (3) in particular scares me. The disparity in wealth between us and the Americans is getting worse and a lot of it is politically driven.
In effect we can cause negative externalities to the rest of the world's population in order to benefit ourselves.
That's market failure in my opinion.2
