Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by dennisboothstash, Sep 20, 2019.
I grow my own. I'm Richard Briars and my missus is Felicity Kendall
He's not wrong Dennis, the climate has always changed, and will continue to do so with or without us, there's plenty of evidence to support that. It's the rate and extent of that change and how much we affect that that's the issue.
It's why I feel the focus should be on sustainable use, as that's far less debatable, and satisfies most sides of the debate, meaning we can concentrate on minimising our impact, and adapting lifestyles in a form of Gaia Principle.
The environmental movement has tried reasoning with governments for 20 or more years, and things are still getting worse globally. So something else needs to be done - whether ER have the right approach or not I don’t know, but assuming current actions and progress are fine, is just head-sand burial.
Not quite Dutch
I absolutely agree that the climate has always changed but you can’t assume that storms would always increase. At some point if climate was changing naturally one storm must eventually be the biggest one ever
According to current thinking, the natural process, with or without us, show that they would increase, at least in certain areas. It's why the lifestyle changes need to incorporate protection from this, because even if we get levels down, it will be a different world. I'd hate technology to be used to try to change that, for the reasons mentioned previously.
Who is saying current actions are fine?
There have been some radical changes as a consequence of existing environmental movements though. The biggest cause of recent changes has been a shift in economics for a host of different reasons causing the multi-nationals to reevaluate. ER's focus seems to be to push for actions that are already being implemented here as a consequence of those you're saying are ineffective.
Most governments think that their current plans for environmental improvement are sufficient. And the evidence suggests they are wrong. That is sticking heads in sand and hoping it goes away - or even worse, becomes the problem of someone in the future.
From Hitch in the mail
I’m sure a lot will just attack the writer rather than read it
We recently closed and demolished Didcot ‘A’ coal-fired power station, an efficient, reasonably modern plant with a generating capacity of about 1.44 gigawatts.
Why? Why not at least mothball it? But no such caution is allowed in the great cause of cutting CO2 emissions.
Look at the facts: an enormous 259 gigawatts (180 Didcots) of new coal-fired capacity are under development in China. That’s on top of the 993 gigawatts of coal-burning capacity China already possesses (690 Didcots). The UK’s whole electrical generation capacity, in all forms of power, is 85 gigawatts (59 Didcots). If we gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference at all to the impact of Chinese coal burning on the atmosphere.
None. Not any. Zero. If we completely abolish all our fossil-fuel generation, including gas, it would likewise not matter in the slightest – except to us, our economy and our standard of living.
China’s planned increase, yes, increase, in coal power is three times the size of our whole electricity-generation industry – wind, nuclear gas, and all. India is also increasing coal generation and last March reached a coal capacity of 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots).
I have said it before. I’ll keep saying it. Thanks to the political and media class’s dim acceptance of shouted propaganda, and their rejection of reason, we are already damaging ourselves.
Wind generation only functions thanks to huge hidden subsidies, paid for by the poor, and is vulnerable to power cuts unless it is backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear generation.
We are like a thirsty man refusing to drink from a tap because of a water shortage, while his local water company leaves hundreds of leaks unrepaired, allowing thousands of gallons to drain away each hour.
You didn't answer the question on who was saying it was fine.
You posted a very broad set of generalisations, which are flawed and wouldn't be resolved by the protests. Governments are advised by the expert panels that the protesters tend to quote.
please log in to view this image
just goes to show that being a Vegan does not save the planet
I don't see any solutions in there . He's basically saying why bother doing anything because China .
He doesn't purport to offer any.
He is disappointed in the credulity of politicians and commentators who lack a sense of global perspective of which countries are causing the most emissions.
Yes I did, I said Governments are saying it’s fine.
And I didn’t say things would necessarily be resolved by the current protests, in fact I said I didn’t know. Explicitly.
But as ever, you crack on criticising the responses you want to receive, rather than the ones you get.
The Government have budgeted considerable sums to tackle it directly, and other amounts to cope with the consequences, so they perhaps have a different definition of 'fine' than you. To reiterate, they get their guidance from the same quarters the protesters quote.
I'm not 'criticising' and there is no 'as ever' on my part. I'm trying to discuss it, and that involves trying to tease out where you get the information that you base your opinion on, because it appears to be lacking in some key areas. I'm also trying to avoid it becoming personal, because I know some people are thin skinned.
Boom! The passive aggressive justification.
Next up, a string of terrible jokes posted on the ‘something different’ thread. It’s a well trodden path.
I'll pop back when it gets back on topic.
Well look at us enjoying a thread where we actually listen to others oppions and sometimes take them on board even.
But seriously, I think this is a worthwhile thread.
The fact we need to consider, the implications to the worldwide economy is obviously very relevant.
I don't have the answers I'm afraid, but this issue is something that needs looking at. Of that there is no doubt.
I would say the worldwide economy needs to change. Quickly. And that needs to amount to a lot more than the “we shouldn’t change until China changes” line in Hitchens’ piece.
A lot of voices are saying that there is a new rosy economic future in a much less environmentally damaging world. But getting there needs a big change of direction that has to happen at global scale to make a difference. We desperately need a government, or governments, to commit themselves to that new future and take a risk - someone has to go first. I don’t think that has yet happened, regrettably.
I’m as committed to my car and my gas fired central heating as most people. It needs big action at a government scale to allow people like me to properly change lifestyle. I look forward to mainstream politicians making that commitment - I think we are starting to edge towards it. Maybe ER have been part of the encouragement there, I really don’t know though.