I disagreed with you. You disagreed with me. It isn’t anything personal. On a message board things don’t come across like they would in the ebb and flow of a conversation. I don’t take it as personal and didn’t intend it as personal with you. Just didn’t agree with your thoughts on the subject just as you didn’t agree with mine. Prefer that to existing in an echo chamber. Take care.
I'm sure we'd all have a laugh, and I'm not sure I'd call it lucky, but you're already steps ahead of a lot of people if you are self aware and honest with yourself and others about it.
Climate change: World so far off targets needed to stop global warming it will destroy economies, says UN report The goal was to limit global warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels but the world is currently on target to heat up by 2.8C by the end of the century. https://news.sky.com/story/climate-...s-says-un-report-12731432?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
Not at all. Do whatever you feel is right. Just pointing out it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Credit to Melted welly on the Farming Forum. honestly how gullible are folk? If I decide to fly to USA, I’m responsible for a % of the emissions on that flight. Also a % involved in the creation of the infrastructure and machines involved. I’m part of the demand. Then there’s a tree, it’s drawing in co2, locking up the C and releasing the O2. It’s just sat there doing that all on its own. Then there’s a group of dicks from oxbridge who’ve set up a company called Kings Trinity Global or something equally pretentious and vague. These dicks buy the tree and it’s neighbours, and if I pay Kings Trinity Global £7.50 when I fly, my “footprint” for the journey is “offset” by the tree and it’s neighbours. Despite this process happening anyway before the Oxbridge dicks came on the scene. So my middle class BBC induced climate guilt is now assuaged and I can continue my self indulgent trip to buy a load of ****e I don’t need and eat far too much, but I’m feeling lighter and happier in myself and my choices. The plane still chucks the vapour trail out the back same as before, the tree does what it’s always done but Rupert, Barnaby and Gervaise get £7.50 x 200 odd for the flight thru the till for being a bunch of slippery smart c-units. Rupert, Barnaby and Gervaise have got a major airline on board so they’re now in it for tens if not hundreds of flights a day. Airline gets a little badge that says “carbon neutral”. Darren and Karen are “doing their bit” on the way to Alicante and Rupes, Barney and The big G are fecking raking it in. So much so that they can now buy up food producing grazing land from the peasants, feck them off it, stick some whips in the ground and the cash is rolling in. plane still emits the same. Am I missing something? please log in to view this image
I forget the figure quoted, and it is obviously disputable anyway, but a fair percentage of the trees planted don't survive, plus quite a lot of those planted are the wrong trees and/or in the wrong place, so they have a detrimental impact on the ecosystem. It's also worth noting that 'green' Drax alone burn a larger mass of timber than is planted in the UK, with emissions worse than coal. Also, the companies signed up to green energy tariffs use more energy than green energy currently produces.
Did you spot that the extended ULEZ takes in Heathrow Airport, so you have to pay a pollution tax to drive to the airport to fly, deliver etc.
Carbon trading, it's a booming industry! I'm no expert but on a broader scale it might benefit poorer countries which have lots of carbon credits to trade although the impact on climate change is a little harder to assess!
Newcastle and Gateshead are currently in the process of bringing in a Clean Air Zone. It goes like this... Doesn't apply to private cars. Does apply to some taxis. The taxi drivers to whom it would apply have sold their cars to private citizens and bought lower emission cars. Their old cars can now enter the CAZ without penalty driven as a private vehicle. Their new cars can enter without penalty as the emissions fall below the CAZ threshold. Result? No charges accrued but an increase in vehicles on the road and an increase in emissions. And a load of pissed off taxi drivers, but at least it gives them something to bend my ear about.
That does sound like a strange scheme, but surely it won't result in more cars on the road. People upgrading/changing their car doesn't mean more cars on the road. Only more people taking car journeys could lead to more cars on the road.
Part of the problem when trying to engineer solutions to a problem you don't fully understand, is that there can be consequences that simply create another issue to be resolved, which is part of a vicious circle. For example, the reduction in the emissions during lockdown corresponded to an actual increase in the concentration of some greenhouse gasses with a greater global warming potential than CO2, and also resulted in an increase of pollutants that will harm health. This would be very similar to replacing ICE with EV's. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...&ranSiteID=TnL5HPStwNw-YXB2FzAB0Na8K2k01XptNQ
That's an interesting read, but the conclusion from the scientists is very much that we are going to need to place more focus on reducing methane emissions. No one is suggesting that we don't actually cut down on vehicle emissions after all.
Hence my comment about engineering solutions potentially creating additional problems that need engineering solutions etc. etc. because of an almost knee jerk reaction of 'solutions' for problems that they don't fully understand.
It's a bit extreme to call reducing vehicle emissions knee-jerk though. We've been talking about it for decades and acting very slowly.
