Biggest con ever was "carbon credits", the idea was ok until you looked at it. One company was allowed 10 carbon credits but only used 6. Great you may think but no, the company down the road used all their credits but still had work to do so they just bought the spare 4 credits from the first company. What does this mean? well bassically the amount of carbon produced meant **** all because we didn't want to save the Earth from those 4 credits and allowed someone to go over their limit for money. Saving the Earth my arse.
Carbon off setting is an even bigger scam, with many of the projects failing such as the majority of trees being the wrong type, the majority not surviving or being planted on land that had a bigger carbon capture rate than the trees they replaced them with, or the projects never even starting in the first place. Companies got cheaper bills for signing up for green energy. Many times there is more energy subscribed to the scheme than the grid can produce from green sources. For the calculations, it is the value for those subscribed that is presented as the reduction, even though it's impossible for it to be correct. A while back, the concern was global dimming and/or global cooling due to particulate in the atmosphere. There was and still is a concerted effort to reduce particulate emissions. Already that should give a hint on a potential unintended outcome, but it can be seen relatively clearly when looking at India, where the clean up of particulate lagged other places, and unsurprisingly, so did the temperature rise.
Someone will post a tweet or a meme soon to change the subject. We may even get some genious with a sarky comment or joke but i doubt we will get any rebuttal or conversation on this.
My daughter's Trainline account now has a handy carbon credit usage thing getting us used to rationing of imaginary good boy points. It looks quite innocent now until these allowances are forced on us , usually by extracting money for freedom of travel
It's worth looking at where and why the 'carbon footprint' originated, but the figures used are usually generic bollocks that miss so much out of the numbers. There are some interesting comparisons such as the one comparing the carbon footprint of car use v cycling, which using the official data can show that a diesel car is greener than a cyclist depending what the cyclist eats to replenish the energy used. One I read, that I don't necessarily agree with, was a response to a cyclist who was extolling the virtue of avocados for his 'commute fuel' without considering how the avocado had reached him.
Mate you have everybody at it now (buttering up the public). I think it's EON that are providing "only green" electricity even though all electricity goes into the national grid and gets boosted up and down by substations to be treansfered around the country. If you live near other houses (the vast magority of people) then all the houses in your street/avenue/close will be fed by one cable. How can EON customers pic the "green" electricity out of that
I frequently get a train towards Cambridge that barely has 30 passengers at quiet times , these carbon usage points probably depend on the train being full & you driving alone in a petrol guzzling car . You need more data than simply train good car bad
Pretty sure the trains from Liverpool to Manchester are still diesel powered , not even "clean " electric Perhaps the Cheshire line
Another piece of information that the greens almost always omit from their arguments are the number of lives that have been saved, and the number of years added to the average lifespan, and also the general quality of life that the advent of fossil fuel use has resulted in. I've heard them talk of millions and even billions of deaths, but a simply look back at the figures and lifestyles pre-industrialisation show that nearly every index of life has improved far more than they predict it will fall. Apart from it being an abuse of the data it stems from and a false claim, Khan's claim of 4,000 deaths doesn't include the improvements in it anyway, so even ignoring the existing errors, once the extended lifespans are added in, it falls even further apart. The background to those basis for that number of deaths claimed is well worth a read, especially if you dig back to the US study at the root of it. Even the authors of that initial bit said it was not possible to infer a correlation because there were too many confounders involved in the study, yet that was ignored, along with other uncertainties inherent at every level, including when it was transposed to imply actual deaths, which the authors said should never happen, yet it gets trotted out blindly in official reports for all the reasons mentioned in other replies. Basically, people use it without fact checking it and applying critical thinking.
They mislead on energy production figures, by quoting those used in the national grid, without mentioning that only accounts for around 20% of total energy use, but even allowing for that, given EV's tend to be charged overnight when solar is down, if the wind isn't blowing then they are fossil fuel powered for the bulk of their charging cycle.
They tend to be mucky diesels that can't even be plugged in to the platform for the cleaners. I don't know if it still happens, but because it needs to be a trained driver, they used to have one travel here from Doncaster and back by taxi to sit in the cab of the idling train so that there was power for the lights so the train cleaners could see. They belched out thick black soot, that was discolouring the 'no smoking' signs on the platform.
Wish governments would just look on here around midnight and the world would be sorted out by next Wednesday.
Africa is actually thriving & Europe is a **** hole , it's just those sneaky whites making Africa look bad by taking photos . It could be the huge influx of Africans to Paris making it look like Africa & the 3rd World
It's the three "d"s...Diego muscling in on the latest Duncoon/Dummed beelfest. Maybe they should all win a conical hat with a D on it.
