Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hull City' started by dennisboothstash, Sep 20, 2019.
You lucky lucky man.
I’ll be honest, other than what I’ve seen on the news I don’t know anything about ER or what they’re advocating specifically (although I do enjoy a good protest regardless)
I shall do some research though and find out
If you say so
I did say earlier in this thread the problem is mind bogglingly complex, and it needs some real joined up thinking. I would say for a start we need to get away from the globalisation idea and go local. Can we not produce food in this country to be eaten in this country? Lamb from New Zealand why? Just seen a BBC program on the world flower trade, plane loads of flowers flown into Holland every day they even have the market next to the airport. How many household appliances cost less then 20 quid and our politicians talk of 10 per hour minimum wage, so why fix things it's cheaper to just bin it and buy another.
We have had subsidies on electric cars, wind and solar energy, the scandal where businesses were formed and got paid to heat empty sheds by burning wood. That's business making money on the back of the green revolution, now there's talk of paying to offset carbon emissions and the next step may be paying farmers to capture carbon. Drax power station which sits on top of huge reserves of the cleanest burning type of coal, running on wood chip brought in from the USA because it's "sustainable"
Money it's all about the money
Unimaginably complex problem
I took the time to discuss it with some of the key activists, and also checked to see if what they were asking was achievable. The key action elements are already lined up by the powers that be, and have been for some time. The number of areas declaring Climate Emergencies being just one example.
Addition to that complexity will come in the future. The push towards electric vehicles, will eventually lead to an increase in the cost of powering them, as the drop in revenue from petrol will need to be made up somewhere, and it's currently subsidising the electric vehicles. The technology to enforce clean air zones is currently funded from the charges. What happens when the vehicles meet the standards, so there's no income?
Whatever happens we end up paying via one tax or another. Nobody said addressing climate change was going to be cheap...
As it stands, I've already said it will be very expensive. The treasury's own figures confirm it. They sound high when you read them the first time, but when you read it again, you realise they're underplaying it. All done well before the rebellion by the way.
As I said previously, I'm behind cleaning things up, but those advocating it need to go in with their eyes wide open.
And is "the push towards electric vehicles" the right thing to do? I know the experts claim it is but there's still many questions regarding the materials needed to make batteries and where they come from. What will happen to all the old batteries at the end of life?
Mains electric charging is good for big business and puts the user under their control.
There are other options, such as hydrogen, but the technology isn't quite there yet, but it hasn't had the same funding as the electric motors.
Hydrogen is certainly simpler for the infrastructure, and could help balance energy production by utilising the intermittent nature of renewables, as it offers a 'store' option by using electrolysis to produce hydrogen, which is deemed too inefficient to do on an industrial scale. The gas network is looking to shift to hydrogen, as natural gas is listed in the fossil fuels to be phased out. It does still tend to use batteries though.
Of course, the better environmental option is do move away from the car as a form of personal private transport altogether, which would make big eco and financial savings on road repairs etc.
I can see me and you falling out Dutch
There isn't a 'right thing to do', there are a multitude of things to do which are all right and will change or be overtaken by other technologies/practices as time passes. For example electric cars might be replaced by hydrogen ones if that technology ever takes off. The issues need to be addressed on all fronts, emissions, waste, energy production, water conservation, and so on. Every little helps in my opinion because it contributes to changing the way we all think.
It took best part of a generation for seatbelts to become second nature, changing the way we live is a tad more challenging.
Yeah, ya ****ing petrol headed baby killer.
I think that's part of the issue though. To be successful, the measures need to enable people to make a free, but informed choice. With the experience so many have in marketing, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the experts to make the alternatives so 'sexy', you'd want to do it and there'd be no need for compulsion.
How many lads now in their 50's would have got a Honda Express at 16 even with Twiggy tempting them? Now, the modern equivalent's almost the go to chariot for cool youths.
I never knew you were a Richard Briars fan.
Don't fall asleep folks... he's written some excellent books - some may think he's an alarmist and sham !
You may have caught him on "Hardtalk" ? Sackur had his moments on this one ?
Rifkin's first minute or 2 of dialogue pinpoint the complex problem.
Underlying all of that is global population growth, inequities between 1st world and 2nd/3rd world wealth/living standards (which creates resentment) and greed.
It ain't easy to solve those issues, hence human feedback effects into global warming/climate change are derivative human spin-offs.
Link to some of his publications"
ER demands in summary
1 Govt declare Climate Emergency.
That’s pretty much done. It was Parliament rather than Govt, but either way they did in May
2. Act now and get to net zero emissions by 2025.
I doubt that is achievable as to do that needs long term planning (Govt target is to get similar to 1990 emissions by 2050 but their plan to achieve that is unclear). A better answer would be something in the middle, but I suppose aiming for 2025 wouldn’t do any harm. To be fair to the Govt, not something I often say, some things like the plastic bag charges really have worked.
3. Govt should create and be led by a Citizens Assembly.
I personally like these in theory, but it would require I think Govt policy beforehand, particularly on budget, because otherwise an Assembly might have splendid and credible ideas, but won’t have the bigger picture of other policies and spend. They do work in some countries though and to be fair to ER they are mainly suggesting that politicians are given cover by being able to simply enact the will of the people...although that doesn’t always go as planned. Quite what ER would think if a Citizens Assembly decided things that they didn’t agree with is another matter
Nothing too controversial though.
If there isn't a right thing to do there maybe plenty of wrong things to do. I have mentioned houses that had coal fires in the past, over time we introduced smokeless zones and by and large stopped using coal to heat homes, that was obviously a right thing to do and yet now we (some) are going back to wood burning stoves and at the same time claim it's green / sustainable. Any connection to the poor air quality in cities or is all that down to the internal combustion engine? you know the ones we are told to replace every few years when the latest technology takes over.
A serious thread in need of some light relief.