Act now folks
- Thread starter Loki
- Start date
- Status
cap n chris
Well-known member
I'm unconvinced that restricting freedom/liberty, increasing poverty/misery, cost of living, potential civil disturbance, ruining international tourism (10% of the global economy/10% of global jobs, btw) etc., is likely to actually win any votes whatsoever notwithstanding people generally do claim to care about the environment, planet, ecology etc.; in reality people care first and foremost about their own immediate welfare (which is entirely understandable and natural) so I reckon no amount of "action" is going to win the day. The Extinction Rebellion cause has probably done more to alienate people than win hearts and minds. Good luck with it. The thread reminded me of this video which resonates plausibly, imo:
Globally, there are still more than 2,400 coal-fired power plants operating in 79 countries, making a total of nearly 2,100 GW of capacity. There are currently three active coal-fired power stations operating in the United Kingdom. They have a total generating capacity of 3.52 GW.
Curbing behaviour in the UK is going to make zero, absolutely zero, difference. Perhaps that what Net Zero is aiming to achieve; I think it might succeed if so.
Globally, there are still more than 2,400 coal-fired power plants operating in 79 countries, making a total of nearly 2,100 GW of capacity. There are currently three active coal-fired power stations operating in the United Kingdom. They have a total generating capacity of 3.52 GW.
Curbing behaviour in the UK is going to make zero, absolutely zero, difference. Perhaps that what Net Zero is aiming to achieve; I think it might succeed if so.
Last edited:
Loki
Active member
Hide under a bridge if you like but some of us care enough to at least try and make a difference. However futile it may be. However this passage I read about the ccp had certain parallels.
Attachments
PeteHall
Moderator
Cheap reliable energy is what has lifted the quality of life in the developed world.
Is it unreasonable for people in the developing world to seek the same quality of life? Sufficient food, decent housing, decent clothing, clean water to drink, etc.
Natural disasters are virtually no risk in the developed world, compared to the developing world, because in the developed world we have the infrastructure to protect ourselves. Should we deny this of others?
If (and it really is if), climate change is being caused by man-made CO2, the way we are going to solve the problem certainty won't be by plunging the entire world into poverty and starvation through Net Zero.
Is it unreasonable for people in the developing world to seek the same quality of life? Sufficient food, decent housing, decent clothing, clean water to drink, etc.
Natural disasters are virtually no risk in the developed world, compared to the developing world, because in the developed world we have the infrastructure to protect ourselves. Should we deny this of others?
If (and it really is if), climate change is being caused by man-made CO2, the way we are going to solve the problem certainty won't be by plunging the entire world into poverty and starvation through Net Zero.
cap n chris
Well-known member
If that happens, we'll have to deal with the consequences. Meanwhile it hasn't happened so we don't.
cap n chris
Well-known member
To be fair (while remaining flippant) if there was a global catastrophe which resulted in the near-complete loss of human life then it arguably wouldn't be a global catastrophe (the complete opposite, actually) while it most certainly would be a human catastrophe. We probably deserve it, as the numbers continue inexorably towards ten billion...
ChrisJC
Well-known member
And that (in my humble opinion) is the elephant in the room. Until we start properly addressing that issue, we are akin to Nero, fiddling whilst Rome burned!
Chris.
There was an interesting 3 part programme recently with Guy Martin looking at various renewable/green energy sources including wind, solar, nuclear and hydroelectric.
what he discovered was that there is ”potential” for all our energy to be from renewable/sustainable sources under ideal conditions and for it to be cheaper than fossil fuels.(not that the government and energy giants are likely to pass that on to the customers)
At times even now over half our electricity comes from renewable sources ie wind and solar.
However, as he quite rightly pointed out, when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing we are reliant on other sources which at the moment are coal and gas in the main with some nuclear thrown in.
There’s no doubt that the weather & seasons are changing but the earth has gone through ice ages and then warmed up again on several occasions over the millennia.
I’m not into conspiracy theories by any means but I do wonder if we’re being told the whole truth or just be sold the nanny state narrative alla Covid all over again.
what he discovered was that there is ”potential” for all our energy to be from renewable/sustainable sources under ideal conditions and for it to be cheaper than fossil fuels.(not that the government and energy giants are likely to pass that on to the customers)
At times even now over half our electricity comes from renewable sources ie wind and solar.
However, as he quite rightly pointed out, when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing we are reliant on other sources which at the moment are coal and gas in the main with some nuclear thrown in.
There’s no doubt that the weather & seasons are changing but the earth has gone through ice ages and then warmed up again on several occasions over the millennia.
I’m not into conspiracy theories by any means but I do wonder if we’re being told the whole truth or just be sold the nanny state narrative alla Covid all over again.
MarkS
Moderator
Regardless of the best way to look after the planet, I'm absolutely amazed that there is an apparent degree of scepticism over whether climate change is caused by human activity.
From one perspective I understand the view of "we had an industrial revolution so why shouldn't everyone", but at the time no one in the world was aware of what the pollution produced actually did...
From one perspective I understand the view of "we had an industrial revolution so why shouldn't everyone", but at the time no one in the world was aware of what the pollution produced actually did...
PeteHall
Moderator
And how much environmental destruction would be needed to harvest all that energy?
Incidentally, wasn't Greta Thunberg recently arrested while protesting against wind turbines?
cap n chris
Well-known member
PeteHall
Moderator
Why are you amazed?
Isn't the whole point of science to be sceptical of everything?
Keep questioning, keep learning.
The moment you think you know everything, is the moment you have given up on science.
PeteHall
Moderator
And who will pay your pension, or wipe your arse when you're in a care home?
Also who will come up with the new technology that allows us to save the planet?
Without kids, humanity is doomed, so why give a shit about the environment if we are going to be extinct anyway?
cap n chris
Well-known member
CURVE BALL ALERT. How about: create a global panic about a scary illness and, in order to calm people down and get a grip, introduce widespread injections (which may or may not have latent contraceptive/fertility/mortality effects); get everyone to willingly subject themselves to it, at least once, or more, or even more, thereby creating a ticking clock of reduced mortality. It's a theory.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Robots, Pete, robots. Or young people in other countries when we all emigrate 'cos we can't afford to stay warm here.
- Status