Maybe we are not doomed after all

pblakeney

People with expectations are going to be very disappointed.
IMO the majority of heads* going are there to boost their ego and have a 5* holiday.

*I forget the total amount of people going including staff etc but the figure was mind blowing.

john80

pblakeney said:

People with expectations are going to be very disappointed.
IMO the majority of heads* going are there to boost their ego and have a 5* holiday.

*I forget the total amount of people going including staff etc but the figure was mind blowing.

Getting into the after-party is getting harder and harder.

pinno

I donated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXDx6DjNLDU

orraloon

FFS went to post a uTub link to Plastic Beach by Gorillaz and lo, gone to 'moderator', aye right, approval. Why they always pickin' on me?

https://youtu.be/PaqMmQZwzBU

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

FFS went to post a uTub link to Plastic Beach by Gorillaz and lo, gone to 'moderator', aye right, approval. Why they always pickin' on me?

https://youtu.be/PaqMmQZwzBU

It's probably a FTB filter for Scottish people.

pinno

orraloon said:

FFS went to post a uTub link to Plastic Beach by Gorillaz and lo, gone to 'moderator', aye right, approval. Why they always pickin' on me?

https://youtu.be/PaqMmQZwzBU

Just copy/paste the link into the address bar 'Loon.

pblakeney

I like the way that the video is embedded in all the above posts about embedding videos.

rick_chasey

All this hypocrisy chat related to COPS, either aimed at politicians or nations like Norway who drill oil but do other stuff to be green is really annoying me.

Everyone has built their economies and lives around carbon generating behaviours.

It’s not hypocritical to say that needs to change and try to change it.

Why criticise people for trying something?

focuszing723

Tesla showed off its new 4680 cell—a tabless battery cell with a new chemistry that promises to boost efficiency and reduce costs—at 2020’s Battery Day event. Since then, several of the automaker’s battery suppliers have reportedly been working on production versions of the 4680 cell.

Now Panasonic has unveiled its version of the Tesla 4680 cell. The Japanese giant, Tesla’s oldest battery partner, says it has solved several technology challenges presented by the larger cell, and plans to deploy a prototype production line.

Kazuo Tadanobu, the head of Panasonic’s battery division, said the new cell has five times the capacity of the cells Tesla currently uses. He added that Panasonic plans to start test production of the new cells at a plant in Japan in March 2022.

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/panasonic-reveals-its-version-of-the-new-tesla-4680-battery-cell/

A fair size bigger than 18650's.

18mm x 65mm
46mm x 80mm

focuszing723

Construction equipment firm JCB has signed a deal worth billions of pounds to buy hydrogen generated by non-fossil fuel-based sources.

The deal for green hydrogen was signed with Australian firm Fortescue Future Industries (FFI) in a partnership the company called the first of its kind.

The agreement will mean JCB will purchase 10 per cent of FFI’s green hydrogen production, with FFI dealing with production and logistics, and JCB and a third firm, Ryze, managing distribution and development of customer demand.

Green hydrogen is created using electricity from renewable sources, with FFI’s chief executive officer Julie Shuttleworth claiming it is the “fuel of the future”.

She added: “Green hydrogen is critical for the planet and good for business, a powerful fuel and ingredient in the manufacturing of a large range of industrial, difficult-to-decarbonise products.

“It will be fundamental in enabling the decarbonisation of heavy industry globally.”

Earlier this month, Uttoxeter-based JCB announced it was investing £100m in zero-emission hydrogen engines to power machinery.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jcb-signs-multi-million-pound-100011410.html?guce_referrer=ahr0chm6ly93d3cuz29vz2xllmnvlnvrlw&guce_referrer_sig=aqaaagnnof20otqt5wyini9jfto2s1r6uqxyrhpmxflq5xpvrxt6m2aj-okwdrr_kovqt3nljx4mao5wlhr-ehl6u6bonjyngqhtvd8acpmkexcgun9c-1kqi0phbu_ppiscv-twd2xl9m3sdtixitaq2_7dhc3djxpf-baknkhb7yow

That's good to hear and from a successful British company.

pinno

It is.

dtaylor243

It's quite cold and dark in Norway for quite a lot of the year.

This seemed the obvious explanation. Iceland colder and darker still.

Seriously? Is it 5 times colder and darker in Norway than the UK? I’ve been to Oslo in November and Glasgow in October and IIRC they were both pretty f^cking bleak and cold. I’m unconvinced the difference is that significant.

Norway is a long thin country which reaches up well north of the Arctic circle, the west coast temperatures are ameliorated by the Gulf Stream but away from the coast winter lows of -20 to - 30 are to be expected every year, don't forget that large parts of the country are covered in snow for 6-7 months of the year.
On sunny winter days all this white stuff reflects a lot of heat back into space and keeps temperatures bellow freezing.
I was in Norway one summer during a heat wave, it was 28° c when I arrived and forecast to reach 30°c, the bloke running the campsite was wilting in the heat and clearly shocked by the forecast, for most Brits like me it was just a hot summers day.

dtaylor243

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

I think they should have compared not having pets to limiting the number of children people choose to bring in to the world.
Personal opinion of course but it seems to me that with so many people on the planet we are doomed to stumble through ever increasing environmental catastrophes, if those who like ( their own) children would just limit the number they have to something between 2 and 3 then over time population will fall and hopefully a combination of a much smaller populations in rich consumer countries combined with new technological development might give nature and human populations the room needed to migrate to areas with habitable climates/natural habitats and land which has not submerged beneath the waves.
Maybe I'm being simplistic here but it just seems a win win to me , not all of us want any kids at all , some people will die before they might otherwise have had children and some will have medical conditions preventing them having kids, that leaves the number of kids people can bring in to the world compatible with a slowly falling population being something larger than 2.
Surely a smaller number of children means that those kids will grow up to live in a cleaner world with more space available to experience the natural world?
Maybe it's time for prospective parents to stop thinking about the families they want but the environments that their adult children will inhabit?

pinno

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

surrey_commuter

pinno said:

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

I wonder why they don't open up the $100bn fund so that people like yourself can not set up a direct debit for 1% of your salary?

rick_chasey

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

pinno

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

I wonder why they don't open up the $100bn fund so that people like yourself can not set up a direct debit for 1% of your salary?

The snide comment aside, WE are the consumers.
WE benefit from cheap labour in other countries. WE are sucking up resources like there is no tomorrow. WE consume energy on a massive scale. WE consume energy by proxy - steel manufacturing in China for example. WE are buying Palm oil by the thousands of gallons to put into products WE use everyday. WE have beef and dairy fed on Brazilian soya.

So climate change is by and large, our responsibility.

WE also get rid of our waste by shipping it abroad (e.g plastic to Indonesia, clothes to Ghana, computers and electrical waste to West Africa).

dtaylor243

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

dtaylor243

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

It was more about the notion rather than the percentage.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

It was more about the notion rather than the percentage.

Sure but that amount matters

rick_chasey

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

Are you an old poster or did you join a bike forum to post about climate change?

john80

dtaylor243 said:

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

I think they should have compared not having pets to limiting the number of children people choose to bring in to the world.
Personal opinion of course but it seems to me that with so many people on the planet we are doomed to stumble through ever increasing environmental catastrophes, if those who like ( their own) children would just limit the number they have to something between 2 and 3 then over time population will fall and hopefully a combination of a much smaller populations in rich consumer countries combined with new technological development might give nature and human populations the room needed to migrate to areas with habitable climates/natural habitats and land which has not submerged beneath the waves.
Maybe I'm being simplistic here but it just seems a win win to me , not all of us want any kids at all , some people will die before they might otherwise have had children and some will have medical conditions preventing them having kids, that leaves the number of kids people can bring in to the world compatible with a slowly falling population being something larger than 2.
Surely a smaller number of children means that those kids will grow up to live in a cleaner world with more space available to experience the natural world?
Maybe it's time for prospective parents to stop thinking about the families they want but the environments that their adult children will inhabit?

You are not going to increase GDP with that negative Nancy attitude.

dtaylor243

rick_chasey said:

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

Are you an old poster or did you join a bike forum to post about climate change?

Did you join a bike forum to pick arguments with strangers?

dtaylor243

john80 said:

dtaylor243 said:

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58996348

Bbc quiz on what lifestyle changes save the most co2. Is the electric car question assuming the car cost nothing (in emissions) to produce?

Not sure comparing a renewably charged electric car with a disel bus is particularly helpful.

I think they should have compared not having pets to limiting the number of children people choose to bring in to the world.
Personal opinion of course but it seems to me that with so many people on the planet we are doomed to stumble through ever increasing environmental catastrophes, if those who like ( their own) children would just limit the number they have to something between 2 and 3 then over time population will fall and hopefully a combination of a much smaller populations in rich consumer countries combined with new technological development might give nature and human populations the room needed to migrate to areas with habitable climates/natural habitats and land which has not submerged beneath the waves.
Maybe I'm being simplistic here but it just seems a win win to me , not all of us want any kids at all , some people will die before they might otherwise have had children and some will have medical conditions preventing them having kids, that leaves the number of kids people can bring in to the world compatible with a slowly falling population being something larger than 2.
Surely a smaller number of children means that those kids will grow up to live in a cleaner world with more space available to experience the natural world?
Maybe it's time for prospective parents to stop thinking about the families they want but the environments that their adult children will inhabit?

You are not going to increase GDP with that negative Nancy attitude.

Do you need some plasters for your knuckles?

rick_chasey

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

Are you an old poster or did you join a bike forum to post about climate change?

Did you join a bike forum to pick arguments with strangers?

More of a side quest. Question remains however. Old poster?

seanoconn

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

I wonder why they don't open up the $100bn fund so that people like yourself can not set up a direct debit for 1% of your salary?

What salary?

seanoconn

seanoconn said:

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

I wonder why they don't open up the $100bn fund so that people like yourself can not set up a direct debit for 1% of your salary?

What salary?

To clear matters up. Pinno transcends work and I can categorically deny he sends his wife out to work while he curls up next to his cat in front of the fire all day. I’ll have you know, Pinno is a very busy man doing very important things that people do in freezing cold Scotland in the middle of nowhere.

rjsterry

seanoconn said:

seanoconn said:

surrey_commuter said:

pinno said:

It's surprising the number of countries with declining populations:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-declining-population

There is an intrinsic link between low birth rate and living standards. Perhaps we have to re-balance the economies so that we can address quality of life. Perhaps it requires us in the West to assist developing countries in terms of health care and education so that poverty isn't the catalyst of high birth rates.
if I was told that I would have to pay an extra 1% income tax to finance environmental/community based projects abroad, I would be more than happy to do so.
Imagine what revenue would be available if that was spread across large corporations too.

But we've been here before, The carbon footprint of those in developed countries who have fewer children is far greater than those in poorer nations who have more.
The problem still remains on the resources required to feed and house them (properly) and the pressure on natural habitats.

I wonder why they don't open up the $100bn fund so that people like yourself can not set up a direct debit for 1% of your salary?

What salary?

To clear matters up. Pinno transcends work and I can categorically deny he sends his wife out to work while he curls up next to his cat in front of the fire all day. I’ll have you know, Pinno is a very busy man doing very important things that people do in freezing cold Scotland in the middle of nowhere.

Good use of 'transcend'.

dtaylor243

rick_chasey said:

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

dtaylor243 said:

rick_chasey said:

It’ll cost more than 1% on your income tax

Many developed countries including UK have commited to paying .7% of gross national income, or something like that, to funding programmes in developing countries, promoting education and familly planning would, I guess come under that budget which we all contribute to through tax.

Are you an old poster or did you join a bike forum to post about climate change?

Did you join a bike forum to pick arguments with strangers?

More of a side quest. Question remains however. Old poster?

No all my posts are brand new.
Good grief if this is the level of discussion pisted on these boards not much point in visiting here.