What they often fail to mention with sea level rise, is that the land moves, and by quite a considerable amount in places, and not just up and down.
Off Topic Climate change/ pollution
- Thread starter bradymk2
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
What they often fail to mention with sea level rise, is that the land moves, and by quite a considerable amount in places, and not just up and down.
That's a collection of viral social media claims that are nonsense, most of those predictions were never made, other than on Facebook.
We're in one of the coldest periods that the planet has experienced.
It doesn't help the arguments when they try to dramatise things, and use figures that are debatable to say the least. It's proven by marketeers and others in the persuasion game that fear and health threats are not a useful tool for generating change.
You'd think those tasked with encouraging change would be aware of that, which raises a few questions.
It's also notable how much is being pushed on to individuals, when targeting the big emitters would surely be more effective.
And while I'm on one, why all the talk of CO2*, when methane and water vapour have a far grater global warming potential, so would give the biggest bang for bucks in tackling an immediate crisis.
*It's often shorthanded to 'carbon', which is ridiculous in itself, as it has no impact on its own.
I completely agree about the energy companies raking in profits, so you are probably right that the full effects of low cost energy are not going to filter down, but that’s a separate issue for governments to sort out.
My frustration is that so much of the debate is around picking holes in environmentalism. It’s not a perfect world and expecting perfection before committing to change is just procrastination, which delays change, and that’s arguably time that we just don’t have.
I saw an interview with Dale Vince (owner of Forest Green Rovers). His business is in green energy production. He thinks we can get to net zero in 10 years at no cost to the taxpayer - there are businesses queueing up to invest, but our country’s inertia is holding back that investment.
As for this obsession the media have with Just Stop Oil protests, it’s just about sensationalising and distraction from the real crimes taking place in this country - it’s not proper journalism. Just stop oil wouldn’t exist if the world was taking the issue seriously.
I also get that the UK doing it’s bit isn’t going to fix the global climate, but we can hardly preach to the rest of the world whilst we’re doing harm to the environment. We need to get our own house in order first.
Which ones are you saying were not made? I would expect that most of those would have had a t least one 'expert' advocating them.
Never believe climate liars
They will tell you the predictions were made on social media or facebook
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
Dale Vince (a just stop oil funder) comes out with enough hot air to fuel the planet. The reality is that most of the renewables are not actually cheap energy, nor are they very green, or a credible option for quite some time yet, which isn't a lot of value in an emergency.
Having read his book An inconvenient Truth several years ago, it's incredible that the guy is still listened to.
I think they're well meaning, and the fundamental cause is good in my opinion. We really should use the earth and its resources in a more sustainable and less damaging way, but many of the measures will simply replace one problem with something that has the potential to be even worse.
It's not helped by the conversation getting hijacked by people with alternative agendas.
Much of the money spent across the globe on a number of other issues would have certainly helped support people to help them do the right thing, but instead the aim seems to be try to demonise individuals, with the expectation they'll be shamed into spending money they haven't got on relatively untested, supposedly greener technologies.
I cant understand the logic of saying it's the West's fault that China and India destroy the environment to produce goods for people in the West.
Surely, if they want to produce goods for the West they should produce them in an environmentally friendly way even if it is more expensive? This is what the climate nutters say we should be doing.
China's figures are interesting, as per head of population they're probably greener than many in several measures, but people tend to quote the over all tonnage of emissions.
Per capita, I think China's emissions are half that of places like Canada, Australia, America, UAE, Saudi and lower than those of the Netherlands.
EDIT: I just looked it up, and I have no idea about the credibility of this site, but according to it my guesses above were around the mark, and it has China lower than Iceland and the Falkland Islands for emissions per head of population.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Last edited:
So it's not important that China produces 27% of the world's emissions whereas the UK produces less than 1%!?
I was thinking that total emissions had more of an effect on climate change rather than emissions per head.
So if China's total emissions stayed the same but their population doubled then their effect on climate change would halve?
Or was I right all along?
Emissions from China are greater, but there are a whole host of other factors that come onto play to decide who is worse, and there's an awful lot of people in China living a subsistence existence .
For example, how much of that produced in China is as a consequence of products being manufactured for the UK, and that includes the solar and wind power stuff that we claim as green energy?
If the UK (or any other Country) wants the lower prices that China can knock stuff out at, and doesn't put conditions on the method of production, whose emissions are they?
Net Zero
Another part of the scam. A company can offset it's carbon footprint by buying credits, so a polluting company pays another company to plant trees for example. In a number of cases the company selling credits has bought cheap unproductive land, badly planted saplings and then left them to die.
Whilst on the subject of trees the SNP has allowed the felling of 16 million trees on publicly owned land to enable the building of wind farms.
whoever generates the emissions owns them
if I want a leather coat and it can be produced in an environmentally friendly way or an unenvironmentally friendly way it is up to the producers to decide what to do
they are the one's to be criticised if they choose the unenvironmentally friendly way
if a bus provider can produce a bus in an environmentally friendly way or an unenvironmentally friendly way
and the bus provider choses an unenvironmentally friendly way
is it the passengers on the buses who should be blamed?
I cant see the producers accepting conditions as it would mean there wouldnt be any mobile phones, electric cars or clothes being produced
Give it a few years and the wind farms will be destroyed to plant trees