They are building 50 new coal fired power stations and have built 52 new airports whilst we have been discussing building one new runway. Who, except a complete numpty, thinks that reducing our 1% of emissions will make any difference to things given what they are doing. Incidentally, we have reduced our carbon emissions more than virtually any other industrialised nation. Far more than China, India, the USA and the other biggest polluters.
Indeed it is. People on here could do a better job of running Hull City and England’s football teams, running the economy, the NHS, the transport system and deal with pandemics better.
They can do what they want, so can we. The madness is a place sitting on top of some of the best coal in the world burning wood that was cut down on the other side of the world trucked, trained, shipped, trucked or trained again to get it there. Not counting the carbon cost as that's in the country of origin. And giving 6 billion of tax payers money in subsidies. Whilst we need to use fossil fuel to make usable energy, use our own and put the subsidies into our own economy. Could be solar panels on every new house, could be insulating older houses, could be more efficient appliencies, more efficient machines for business use.
We have offset our emissions to places like China and India is probably the correct way of looking at it. Someone has to lead the way anyway, we’re in a position where we can improve our impact on the planet, why wouldn’t we?
There's been an opportunity to lead on this and not follow. Whataboutism will not change the world, that is for certain. We are not currently on course for net zero, so I don't really think we have anything to brag about.
How can we lead? We are an insignificant little country according to Remainers. We are a lot closer to net zero than a lot. How us shivering with power cuts is going offset all the coal fired power stations being built is something perhaps you can explain?
There was a strong plan being proposed but most people care more about their individual lives than the greater good.
That so called 'strong plan' did not really stand close scrutiny, especially when the full consequences of implementing it, and a proper cost balance assessment was carried out. It was a soundbite and was heavily criticised by environmentalists as well as scientists.
I imagine that many of these people are biased themselves, much like the ex-Greenpeace guy you espouse. There's little to no nuance included in that book from what I've read.
Errr... Is that not what China are doing? The 'strong plan' also suggested re-nationalising the energy sector DMD.
The countries using their products amongst others are the polluters. Stopped flying away on holiday, have you? Or buying fast fashion items?
I think this maybe is a misinterpretation of China's integrated energy system, from wherever you read this. They might be building more coal fired power stations, but will they be burning more coal and increasing Gw produced by coal? Provinces are building smaller, more efficient coal fired power stations as back up, for when renewables and most importantly, hydro electric fails, like it did last year. They don't run coal powered power stations 100% of the time, that's the benefit of them - they can be mothballed and restarted within days. It's not in China's interest to be reliant on coal - as there's not enough coal in China. Theyre investing in renewables far more, as they're pretty much free once the initial cost is paid and not reliant on a foreign power or market for access. Hence the boom in electric cars in China.
How many coal fired power stations are opening? How many airports are we building? Do nationalised companies energy products produce less pollution? The fact the air is cleaner since the demise of the coal board and denationalisation of the energy companies suggests otherwise. Not that I am against energy and water being back in the public domain.
Yet eco zealots think we should not have coal powered power stations on standby here when the green methods can’t supply our needs. China imports a lot of its coal, causing more pollution in transporting, doesn’t it?
Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organisations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions during the same time period. These are the ones who could make a difference, not, you or I. Unfortunately the people are charged of these Corporation's are greedy almost by definition.
