What's the truth about Paris today Frenchie? The anti capitalists and communists being their normal law abiding peaceful respectful selves? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ial_to_those_who_died_in_terror_attacks_.html
To be honest they received little coverage, but what they did get was heavily covered with scorn. The feeling in Paris is still very raw after the latest attack, but there are a lot of complaints that the government did little to protect people after the Charlie Hebdo affair at the start of the year. What we have seen is a bit of a U turn by Hollande trying to look as if he knows what to do, but at the same time his Prime Minister is not singing from the same hymn sheet. I am afraid that once again, and it doesn't just apply to France, elections are close and politicians are trying to look for votes and saying what they think will be popular. I suspect that what is happening is simply playing into the hands of the FN who are trying to look like a reasonable party as the left wing socialists are all at sea and cannot agree about anything.
I also take the fourth Leo, but with some additions namely 1. Question the concept of endless growth and stress the need for redistribution instead. 2. Take on responsibility from below ie. don't wait for governments to regulate from above - take responsibility for your own emissions and for those of your town or area. 3. Self sufficiency in all things which can be produced locally. 4. I also do not think that forbidding works, but I would give very healthy incentives to those people and areas who are working ecologically. 5. Do not rely on technical solutions - they may never happen, and they are a distraction from the main theme which is a radical change in our consumption on the one hand and to turn it into fun on the other (yes people actually like sharing !).
You guys are no fun at all. I had you down for Option 1 Aberdeen and Cologne for 2 (that seems awfully close to the Green Party line); I was prepared to bat on behalf of 3 but we all know that it is variations of Option 4 that makes sense. Boo hiss
We're all Watford supporters at the end of the day so will end up making the right choices however we get there!!! Dammit I even agree with Cologne regarding reducing consumption but then I go and move from his line by saying it has to be done through reduction of waste not reduction in quality of life or access to goods and services.
A few graphs please explain... there are loads of these... please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image All correlates to us being insignificant...
The point is the microscale is irrelevant! We have at leat 6 degrees headroom. We will not be a species on this planet for long enough to get trends beyond noise.
I am being thick. Do they not show our temp now as about +1 and the max ever at +3 - which is in line with the "don't allow a 2 degree rise message?"
You're reading the bottom graph wrong way around. Lomg term trend is global cooling over the millions of years. We're about 6 degrees below the max.
They're all too busy quaffing chateaux lafite, plats de fruits de mer, escargots etc..... Hopefully they do not commit any money to dreams but get on with rolling out a safe nuclear program.....
Balanced opinion in the Grundiad for once!!! http://www.theguardian.com/environm...he-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
Very good article - thanks Aberdeen. The thing is that solar energy will become more effective cheaper and less damaging as its use increases and we manage proper storage. Also nuclear fusion will one day become a reality. In the meantime if modern nuclear power stations help reduce carbon emissions they ought to be welcomed as an interim solution
We're pretty much there with solar for small off grid applications. The Tesla battery storage systems for homes are technically effective just need costs to reduce so really for domestic needs we are getting close if not already there with effective solutions. The industrial needs need to be supported by nuclear, the modular nuclear being supported by a government 500 million competition (half the value saved from the CCS cancellation and a more mature technology) is capable of mass rollout in the 2020-2025 window thus keeping the lights on for industry and providing the bridge until fusion becomes available. The long term carbon free in terms of electricity goal is in sight even if I still don't believe we should be cutting carbon emissions as consensus is against we have to find an effective way of achieving it.
I'm not going to join in on this thread, I get wound up by deniers... Few things to think about... 1: Is nuclear the option? Do you have any idea how much we're paying the Chinese for the reactors? Aren't they supposed to be one of the potential 'bad guys'? Do wind turbines have meltdowns that could ruin the local environment for miles around? 2: If climate change wasn't a real threat to the global economy, why would all the world leaders be meeting up to discuss it? 3: If climate change is having 'no negative effect' on the planet, why is there A LOT of proof that it is? 4: If warming is part of the earth's natural climate cycle, why has it accelerated so much over the last 100 years? 5: Why do deniers hate wind turbines so much? 6: Why do pro-frackers refuse to acknowledge the negative impact of fracking? 7: Why, when there is a near-global agreement on man-made climate change occurring, do some people feel such a strong need to protest it? Do they have any views they wish to share on the moon landings happening or 9/11? 8: Let's say the deniers are right, and it's 99% likely that we'll be fine if we continue like this, isn't the 1% chance of us rendering the planet inhabitable for our species (and the millions of other species we share it with) something to be concerned about? If you had a packet of 100 peanuts and one was poisoned, would you eat a peanut from it? Basically, what is the negative effect of us changing our energy-generation methods?
The problem is that power stations are at present producing around 30% of Co2 emissions (no methane or nitrous oxide which are even more serious) - transport/traffic/mobility and agriculture are more serious in terms of global warming. Even if all the electricity in eg. Germany were produced by renewable energy sources it would lower the carbon footprint per person only by about 2-3 tons Co2 per year - and leave us with the problem that the production, distribution, transport and eventual recycling of eg. Solar panels or wind turbine parts is not as environmentally friendly as the product itself. There are no short cuts or techno fix solutions - we will only really start coming to grips with this problem when we can start thinking about a 'post growth' society with a radically different consumption ethic.
Do not worry! Nature is going to sort this all out with natural selection, it may not be popular or what man wants but its what we will get as "you can;t beat nature" in the end she gets you!! There are too many people on the planet, just our breathing causes immensely more emissions than 100 yeas ago and something will give. Be it disease, famine or war we are overdue a cull in the human race. The only true solution is a reduction in population, I propose removal of all terrorists, all L"t"n supporters, all anti gun liberals, all communists that should reset the clock and give us another 3 or 4 centuries to find another planet....
