Off Topic Politics Thread

.

 

Carbon capture is pie in the sky I'm afraid. However, isn't it depressing how our PM and others can still use emotive language (in a time when Parliament has signed up to avoiding this) to label all those willing to take action against Climate Change as uncooperative crusties, importunate nose-ringed climate change protesters living in hemp-smelling bivouacs despite them doing more for our future than he is.

 

I wonder what would happen if like the manager of the Houston Rockets coming out to back the HK protests one of our players or the manager did the same. Would we start to back track over free speech in fear of reducing our commercial interests in China or upsetting a board member. Would you be supportive of a player having free speech even if it damaged the clubs financial position?

 

I'm still hopeful about Carbon capture, specifically CCS (carbon capture and storage) combined with CCU (carbon capture and Utilisation)
It might be costly initially, or even in the long term however it will be necessary regardless as simple reduction of current outputs of co2 isn't enough

 

I'd like to think that they should have freedom of speech, regardless of its effect. I don't see pots of cash flowing into Saints coffers from China so I don't think it would have any effect on us as it happens, except maybe persuading Gao to **** off and let a proper investor in

 

yes I would.........you are all convinced it is the right thing to stay....fair enough let’s stay..........I still won’t be convinced that we couldn’t do better out. However if that is what the people want then let’s do that then. We need to do something though and not **** about. That is the worst we can do...........

 

I can't like that but can question it's legality. Had it been sung in a street by "Ingerland fans" on an away trip it would bring widespread condemnation and the possibility of cracked heads by the local police.

 

It's pie in the sky, but. there's lots of potential money to be made in carbon capture, which is why business likes it. There's relatively little money made in planting trees. And trees are way better at it, once they get a decent bit of growth cycle going.

Here is a typical article opening paragraph from pro-carbon capture tech:

"Like a deer frozen in the headlights of an approaching car, world leaders are doing little to address the threat of climate change.
In the long term, we can address climate change by shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energies. However, at the moment, green technologies are not yet cost-effective alternatives to the cheap oil, gas and coal that fuel the global economy. Until that changes, we will need other solutions."

Does that sound true? Actually it's total and utter BS. Green renewable alternatives are already way cheaper than cheap oil, gas and coal, because FFs are not cheap. And that's with zero price adjusting. And the full environmental equation is never made with FFs anyway. Once you start removing the massive subsidies handed to the FF industry, Renewables go from being merely cheaper to many, many times cheaper than FF power. Globally the FF industry gets $6.7 Trillion dollars per year. Just so that they can carry on exploring for those harder to find deposits which we ought to be making them leave in the ground anyway. Renewables get the tiniest fraction in comparison, and that's going away.

But this is the thing. It's all about the bottom line. If we can make a better buck from the business of carbon capture then we'll make a headlong dash into doing it. Planting trees doesn't cut it, even though it's the sensible, cheapest, prettiest, and ultimately human solution, because anyone and everyone can do it.

BTW, if there was doubt, I'm agreeing with you OROW.

 

And if anyone wants to plant trees, simply pop to the Ecosia search engine on your PC, Mac, Linux, Tablet, or Android Smartphone and make that your default search engine when you browser search. Every time you search you plant a tree. Couldn't really be simpler. You don't have to put it on every device. Just one will do. Mine is on my phone.

Last time I looked they'd got to over 70,000,000 trees planted: https://www.ecosia.org/

 

Yes

 

I use Ecosia but really wish it was a better search engine. I never used to use Bing because I thought it was pretty useless but I'm now putting up with Bing-style searches for the planet

 

Just switched to ecosia. I'll see how clunky it is before I completely switch from chrome. I do quite a bit of Internet searching so it might become another new forest

 

*shakes head

It’s been a while since I’ve seen such prejudice. I think I’ve heard about 5 or 6 other key figures say it should no good before The French chap.

 

No. I don’t accept that. Most of the critics I had come from the Euro leader and negotiator.

 

Well that's another Brexiteer hang up revealed. Let's go the whole hog and say that the cheese eating surrender monkeys are dictating policy.
Recent conversation in the pub.

"Been away ain't you, mate? Where you been."

"France. Lovely part near .."

"France? **** me. Wouldn't catch me over there. Bloody French. Dropped us right in it in the war."

Go on. Guess how these two voted. And could any military expert explain what France might have done in the face of the German Blitzkreig?

 

Nothing really. The problem was that they didn't take it seriously. By the time they did they found out that their tanks were in the wrong place and, more importantly, were not fuelled. By the time they were it was too late. In virtually the only effective counter attack De Gaulle decimated an entire German supply column. Had they deployed their forces correctly they would have been a match for the attacking forces. The fact that they were not fuelled was entirely the fault of the High Command.

 

He probably meant the 100 years war

 

It was sort of a rhetorical question, but given that you've responded I'll just ask a) was the defeat down to the cowardice of French troops as some like to claim and b) what was the great British master plan in 1940 that makes 'us' so superior?

France's suffering in WW2 is ingrained in the national DNA and largely explains why they are pretty keen on maintaining a strong united Europe. Taking a pop at the French seems to be a national pastime in Britain and it seriously pisses me off!

 

Also: it was the British who made the decision to nope the **** out, opting to terminate counterattacks aimed at relinking the Dunkirk pocket with the main body of the French army, focusing instead on evacuating. Which wasn't cowardice, either...it was a sound decision given that the sheer lack of coordination and likelihood that failure would have meant the loss of the armies in the pocket. But it was a decision that sealed the fate of France nonetheless.

 

Lets carry on with the stupid prejudice.

90% of the French army is the catering corps. No wonder the tanks weren't fuelled they were probably having their two hour long lunch time.