leicsmac

Trump buying into the idea of "Greater Israel" in all its rather dubious glory, then. Quelle surprise.

Accurate and sound investment advice tbh.

Didn't matter in the end, we needed to get him too.

Eloquent. And then you have the leader of the biggest economic power in the world thinking that there's nothing to be concerned about. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20px1e05w0o

For someone apparently keen to limit the ascendancy of China on the world stage, his actions sure do look like ones that preclude them stepping into the fold as world leaders on several global matters.

Colour me shocked, given his worldview I never imagined him as the type...

For the time being.

Exactly. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy.

It's a darkly fascinating debate that's been done on here before. When the burden of proof to lock someone up for life (and therefore be able to release and compensate them if you get it wrong) is "beyond a reasonable doubt", what does the burden of proof have to be when you take someone's life as a result (which is, needless to say, irrevocable)?

And the mask keeps slipping.

On some issues at least, this idea may not simply be uptopian, but utilitarian, as it will be the best (or perhaps even only) chance of maintaining human civilisation as it is. Global problems require global solutions and cooperation. If we're not up to that as a species...well, we'll be penalised for it. This is not some lofty moral argument about "all the people together". It's the simple calculus of survival.

That's where storage systems come in, and tidal is theory that would easily be put into practice in a place like the UK. But in any case, I'm thinking more about the consequences not just in the UK but worldwide should we not drawdown carbon emissions, which again I would invite you to consider (as per above) as their cost is much, much higher than most any system implemented to stop them. It's about how it can be done, but more than that it's about why it must be done.

A suite of solutions - small and medium scale fission for backbone, tidal, hydro, wind and solar for local solutions. That is the overall goal. Perhaps gas to help with the transition, but only where needed and only as a stopgap to preserve quality of life. Climate change will lead to policy decisions from politicians in the UK and elsewhere you may find very, very nasty. Again, look at the two scenarios I point out earlier on this page. WRT the bill, once again, if it is radical in the way you suggest, then it won't pass anyway so this entire discussion is moot. Ha! I've always favoured a technological transition that doesn't degenerate quality of life over gestures that would radically change things. However, sometimes the necessity of even that needs to be made very, very clear to as many people as possible because they seemingly can't or won't understand the consequences if it isn't done.

They and Carl Sagan had the best words to say about the Earth...and about those who inhabit it.

In order: - provided the transition is made according to current plans, there should really be next to no sacrifices in terms of reduction of quality of life. Energy generation and transportation infrastructures will remain in principle the same; they'll just be powered differently. - The neo-Luddites amuse me more than worry me, but as long as they or those who think renewables are the entire solution are nowhere near control of the political process I think that's logical. Perhaps more worry might be spent on those who think there isn't a problem at all and are willing to ignore it in favour of short term profit, who do have control of the political process in many places. - Net zero is exactly as it sounds; a country or location emitting exactly the same or less carbon emissions into the air as it captures. Not sure how that's a worrying concept either.

And it took anywhere between 200 and 600 years to fully put together. That's dedication in of itself.

Pretty sure one in the past clocked out at around 950 pages.

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that no matter what bills get proposed, the overall target to get to net zero by 2050 will remain unless there is a major policy departure, so it's rather pie in the sky. Secondly, a polite reminder that unless the UK and other places do phase out hydrocarbons for energy generation ASAP, there will be consequences up to and including societal collapse anyway. See above.

WRT the first paragraph legal words supercede feelings in this case for me. But that's thorny ground. Totally agree with the second paragraph.

Ah, welcome back. Can the erudite author of this article actually prove anything that he's saying here about the global climate science corps to a scientific standard, or is it all just pretty much libelous?

If you're looking for truly neutral reportage, Reuters and Associated Press. It's rather dry, but they give just the facts, no spin.

NB. Not sure how much longer much of this discussion will last tbh.

I'm not sure that "British" (clearly still a topic up for debate, that) people have some higher function that stops them engaging in evil mindless violence. And to forestall an obvious response, the inference here is likewise obvious.

If the people Singhy refers to below don't take one, I'm not sure I can. Or should. Extraordinarily disturbing, because the motive of division and objective of creating ethnostates is obvious.

Sadly, that may well not be a universal opinion.