I don't suppose anyone here has access to a tank, do they?

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

That, of course, is such a perfect summary. If you don’t believe that a utopian agrarian economy with all the technological luxuries we have now thrown in, powered by the wind and the sun as if in an episode of Star Trek, can be achieved with ease and without inconvenience, you support Donald Trump. Brilliant.

itboffin

70.3 is your age right?

Stevo_666

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Same for me, went over Waterloo Bridge on the bike at walking pace on Monday evening. A couple of them didn't seem too amused when I pointed out what a lovely cold day it was

They've had their day out; now they need to 'go forth' and protest in countries which contribute much more to Global warming than the UK - like China, for example.

The UK - home of the coal-powered industrial revolution and former exploiter of the world's largest empire - exports much of its pollution to China because China actually makes stuff. The UK is rich; it can afford to lead the charge against climate change.

Interestingly, China is making big efforts to clean up its act and 'own' emerging technologies; among other things, if you visit Beijing you might notice that every scooter (and there's lots of them) is electric, while here in the UK 2-strokes still stink up the air. Solar panels are cost-effective, thanks to China, and now electric buses are, too.

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

Try looking at some current facts rather than what we did 150 years ago - China's emissions are way higher than ours and rising:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018
So as asked before, why don't the protesters go there and protest? (I'm all for them going and doing that as long as someone films it). Actually, if they protest in Tiananmen Square, Greg's wish about tanks might just come true.

Stevo_666

Anyway, a tank may be a bit OTT, so we should look to our illustrious European partners to see how they are dealing with these protests. I reckon the French have struck the right balance with a liberal application of pepper spray:

ugo.santalucia

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Looks like you accept the “threat” isn’t really a threat. That’s good.

NO, it's just you and Trump left thinking that... all the others have accepted that the threats first exposed 30 years ago have come to life a lot quicker than thought...

cougie

I think I'm going to take the advice of David Attenborough and co over the musings of someone who reckons a lot without much evidence.

It's not like we have a backup planet if they are correct is it ?

bondurant

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

That, of course, is such a perfect summary. If you don’t believe that a utopian agrarian economy with all the technological luxuries we have now thrown in, powered by the wind and the sun as if in an episode of Star Trek, can be achieved with ease and without inconvenience, you support Donald Trump. Brilliant.

Bit of a stretch that. As you probably know.

greg66_tri_v2.0

itboffin wrote:

70.3 is your age right?

Was.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Same for me, went over Waterloo Bridge on the bike at walking pace on Monday evening. A couple of them didn't seem too amused when I pointed out what a lovely cold day it was

They've had their day out; now they need to 'go forth' and protest in countries which contribute much more to Global warming than the UK - like China, for example.

The UK - home of the coal-powered industrial revolution and former exploiter of the world's largest empire - exports much of its pollution to China because China actually makes stuff. The UK is rich; it can afford to lead the charge against climate change.

Interestingly, China is making big efforts to clean up its act and 'own' emerging technologies; among other things, if you visit Beijing you might notice that every scooter (and there's lots of them) is electric, while here in the UK 2-strokes still stink up the air. Solar panels are cost-effective, thanks to China, and now electric buses are, too.

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

Try looking at some current facts rather than what we did 150 years ago - China's emissions are way higher than ours and rising:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018
So as asked before, why don't the protesters go there and protest? (I'm all for them going and doing that as long as someone films it). Actually, if they protest in Tiananmen Square, Greg's wish about tanks might just come true.

So the U.K. is, according to you, doing enough for climate change?

rick_chasey

I sense authoritarians don’t like protests and this whole china wish is just wishcasting about living in their own authoritarian state.

Tell me I’m wrong.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

I sense authoritarians don’t like protests and this whole china wish is just wishcasting about living in their own authoritarian state.

Tell me I’m wrong.

You’re wrong.

HTH.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Same for me, went over Waterloo Bridge on the bike at walking pace on Monday evening. A couple of them didn't seem too amused when I pointed out what a lovely cold day it was

They've had their day out; now they need to 'go forth' and protest in countries which contribute much more to Global warming than the UK - like China, for example.

The UK - home of the coal-powered industrial revolution and former exploiter of the world's largest empire - exports much of its pollution to China because China actually makes stuff. The UK is rich; it can afford to lead the charge against climate change.

Interestingly, China is making big efforts to clean up its act and 'own' emerging technologies; among other things, if you visit Beijing you might notice that every scooter (and there's lots of them) is electric, while here in the UK 2-strokes still stink up the air. Solar panels are cost-effective, thanks to China, and now electric buses are, too.

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

Try looking at some current facts rather than what we did 150 years ago - China's emissions are way higher than ours and rising:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018
So as asked before, why don't the protesters go there and protest? (I'm all for them going and doing that as long as someone films it). Actually, if they protest in Tiananmen Square, Greg's wish about tanks might just come true.

So the U.K. is, according to you, doing enough for climate change?

The push to sustainable energy sources and banning sales of new cars with internal combustion engines by 2040 in the UK are pretty significant. However whatever we do makes no difference if the rest of the world doesn't play ball. CO2 doesn't respect national boundaries.

What do you suggest?

Stevo_666

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I sense authoritarians don’t like protests and this whole china wish is just wishcasting about living in their own authoritarian state.

Tell me I’m wrong.

You’re wrong.

HTH.

What's new?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Same for me, went over Waterloo Bridge on the bike at walking pace on Monday evening. A couple of them didn't seem too amused when I pointed out what a lovely cold day it was

They've had their day out; now they need to 'go forth' and protest in countries which contribute much more to Global warming than the UK - like China, for example.

The UK - home of the coal-powered industrial revolution and former exploiter of the world's largest empire - exports much of its pollution to China because China actually makes stuff. The UK is rich; it can afford to lead the charge against climate change.

Interestingly, China is making big efforts to clean up its act and 'own' emerging technologies; among other things, if you visit Beijing you might notice that every scooter (and there's lots of them) is electric, while here in the UK 2-strokes still stink up the air. Solar panels are cost-effective, thanks to China, and now electric buses are, too.

Climate change and mass extinction are undeniably crises but the solutions are manageable and achievable; who do you trust - Donald Trump or the scientific community?

Try looking at some current facts rather than what we did 150 years ago - China's emissions are way higher than ours and rising:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018
So as asked before, why don't the protesters go there and protest? (I'm all for them going and doing that as long as someone films it). Actually, if they protest in Tiananmen Square, Greg's wish about tanks might just come true.

So the U.K. is, according to you, doing enough for climate change?

The push to sustainable energy sources and banning sales of new cars with internal combustion engines by 2040 in the UK are pretty significant. However whatever we do makes no difference if the rest of the world doesn't play ball. CO2 doesn't respect national boundaries.

What do you suggest?

I’m no expert at all; I think a lot of the possible gains are around power generation.

I would have thought cap & trade would work but I guess not.

I have a personal bugbear around food packaging but I imagine that’s small fry.

But I do believe it is not taken as seriously by all gov’ts as it should be. I am surprised there isn’t more cross party consensus on this. The evidence that the changes are happening is there and what causes it. It really ought not be a political choice to address it or not. The political choice will ultimately be which part(s) of society take on the burden.

rick_chasey

The solutions are quite complicated.

It seems common sense that renewables are a decent answer to a big part of the problems, right?

Not burning stuff for energy.

But, with current infrastructure, it's not so straightforward: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... e79a754f59

Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.

but are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that "the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon."

tgotb

Stevo 666 wrote:

The push to sustainable energy sources and banning sales of new cars with internal combustion engines by 2040 in the UK are pretty significant. However whatever we do makes no difference if the rest of the world doesn't play ball. CO2 doesn't respect national boundaries.

What do you suggest?

Rather than preaching at people to fly less, consume less, etc etc etc, which as you say will have zero impact on most other countries, we should be making it easier/cheaper for them to reduce their impact; the good thing is that we have the skillset in this country to do this, and it will benefit the economy.

One example: Modern high-bypass turbofan engines are way more efficient than old jet engines and they're also more reliable, meaning that aircraft can fly long-distance routes over oceans with just two of them, improving efficiency further.

Another example: Videoconferencing is now ubiquitous, which has reduced the demand for business travel.

By investing in education (especially STEM subjects), scientific research and engineering, we can create technology to continue making green energy cheaper, continuing to move transport and materials production away from fossil-based fuel and feedstocks, reduce the environmental impact of concrete production etc etc etc. If these technologies can compete with fossil-based technologies, other countries will willingly adopt them and our economy benefits from selling them the technology.

Ben6899

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

the wheel, farming, commerce, technology (that thing you’re using to read this? It came from the space program). So the really big steps forward for mankind certainly didn’t come from protest.

You don't think women getting the vote was a big step forward for mankind? Really?

kingstongraham

Banning airline loyalty schemes would reduce air travel a lot.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Banning airline loyalty schemes would reduce air travel a lot.

I read the other day the carbon footprint of IT & the internet is comparable to air travel.

Your posts, tweets and selfies also have an environmental cost.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Banning airline loyalty schemes would reduce air travel a lot.

I read the other day the carbon footprint of IT & the internet is comparable to air travel.

Your posts, tweets and selfies also have an environmental cost.

But think of the benefits of all my posts.

tgotb

Rick Chasey wrote:

I read the other day the carbon footprint of IT & the internet is comparable to air travel.

Your posts, tweets and selfies also have an environmental cost.

A single Google search creates somewhere between 1-10g of CO2 emissions (yes, I'm afraid I had to Google this).

Has anyone worked out the additional CO2 a cyclist emits by cycling to work and back? The base emissions (from memory, not Google) are in the order of 1Kg/day, but you're obviously going to be emitting a bit more doing 25mph along the Embankment than you would in an armchair.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Banning airline loyalty schemes would reduce air travel a lot.

I read the other day the carbon footprint of IT & the internet is comparable to air travel.

Your posts, tweets and selfies also have an environmental cost.

On second thoughts, the ban coming on 15 July will be a green measure. Can do that as well as the loyalty schemes and we're well on the way.

Cheeseface22

I don't live or commute into central London, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the impact the recent demonstration made to those who live or work in London...

I just came across this video on YouTube:

Extinction Rebellion is making London a nice place to ride - CycleGaz

He's a bit of a controversial uploader but his video showing Westminster and Picaddily(?) looked quite bliss without any motor vehicle on roads.

What a different scenario compared to the usual rat race traffic that we all know (even when I don't live anywhere near London)...