Climate Change - a poll

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Trump with the expected rhetoric about climate change not being a problem at his inauguration, then.

 

When the consequences of that become apparent - as they already are and will only get bigger - I sincerely hope it's recorded that those consequences are on the heads of him and those who voted for him. Because those left won't necessarily be picky about who they hold accountable.

I am sure you are right,  but do you think he cares one bit? 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Robo61 said:

I am sure you are right,  but do you think he cares one bit? 

No, most certainly not.

 

But should the worst happen, it needs to be known by everyone who comes afterwards who was responsible. So there can be accountability for those left who were responsible, and generally for the record.

 

Of course, thankfully we're not at that stage yet.

[Robo61]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

No, most certainly not.

 

But should the worst happen, it needs to be known by everyone who comes afterwards who was responsible. So there can be accountability for those left who were responsible, and generally for the record.

 

Of course, thankfully we're not at that stage yet.

Not sure there will be anyone left who can be fully held to be accountable,  as it will take a long to play out.  It seems to me that the worst that will happen to these charlatans is that at some point a hundred years or so away,  there will be a debate about  whether their statues should remain in place so that future generations can learn the lessons of history.  But they won't as is being played out now,  humans struggle to learn the lessons of even relatively recent histical events. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Not sure there will be anyone left who can be fully held to be accountable,  as it will take a long to play out.  It seems to me that the worst that will happen to these charlatans is that at some point a hundred years or so away,  there will be a debate about  whether their statues should remain in place so that future generations can learn the lessons of history.  But they won't as is being played out now,  humans struggle to learn the lessons of even relatively recent histical events. 

It will be sooner than a hundred years, I fear, once decreased resources make the shooting start, and we remember the bad hombres of history from that long ago now.

 

And considering in this case the body count may make all of those bad hombres look like amateurs at the article of death, then there should be, needs to be, reason to remember and hold accountable those responsible.

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It will be sooner than a hundred years, I fear, once decreased resources make the shooting start, and we remember the bad hombres of history from that long ago now.

 

And considering in this case the body count may make all of those bad hombres look like amateurs at the article of death, then there should be, needs to be, reason to remember and hold accountable those responsible.

The effect will almost certainly be within a hundred years I agree, but populations will be too busy dealing with the aftermath to really care about who is responsible until sometime later.

 

 

[Foxin_Mad]

On 27/11/2024 at 09:04, Grebfromgrebland said:

This is a popular saying but I'm not sure I actually believe it anymore. Most of the time in a democracy we get to vote for the people presented to us and most of that is pretty skewed to those who have the most influence in the media and who has the most influence online and who has the most spending power on adverts. 

 

I think if you ask most people in this country do we want a functioning health service and railway, nationalised water gas and electricity, better human rights, better working rights and a better living environment everyone would say yes but the reality is we keep consistently voting for the opposite.

Thing is voting is not as simple as that. You have to consider how parties think we are going to achieve the goals mentioned. It might be that some current Labour policy towards business for actually makes those things less achievable which I believe. The last Labour budget in my opinion will only serve to shrink the economy, reduce jobs,  reduce investment, eventually reduce tax income all of which is required for the above to become reality. At the minute this country is on a huge downward trajectory, and a path to most becoming poorer. At the minute Whitehall and large parts of the public sector are so inefficient and delivering poor productivity and value with ever increasing costs, something has to give. 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Thing is voting is not as simple as that. You have to consider how parties think we are going to achieve the goals mentioned. It might be that some current Labour policy towards business for actually makes those things less achievable which I believe. The last Labour budget in my opinion will only serve to shrink the economy, reduce jobs,  reduce investment, eventually reduce tax income all of which is required for the above to become reality. At the minute this country is on a huge downward trajectory, and a path to most becoming poorer. At the minute Whitehall and large parts of the public sector are so inefficient and delivering poor productivity and value with ever increasing costs, something has to give. 

... which then leaves us with the chicken/egg situation where a strong economy is (apparently) necessary to implement infrastructure to safeguard the future, but at the same time every single political decision, including economics, relies on a stable and temperate environment in which they can be enacted. (bolded for emphasis). What use is an economic system when you can't grow crops, source potable water or any other vital resource with it?

 

I'm not sure why some folks simply do not get that the future cost of inaction will (not might be, not may be, will) be at least an order of magnitude, probably several, higher than the cost of taking preventative action now. But then denial is a strong emotion.

 

Economics is important, for this issue and others. But it doesn't change the irrevocable fact that this needs to be done either with it or in spite of it.

Edited 21 January by leicsmac

[Posthorn54]

Climate change comedians on here ha ha 

[HighPeakFox]

37 minutes ago, Posthorn54 said:

Climate change comedians on here ha ha 

Care to share your educated and well thought out views?

[RoboFox]

7 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Care to share your educated and well thought out views?

Just like in the politics thread when someone pops in with a "lol leftys on ere" zinger, it's always the same. The contrarians who totally lack the cognitive capacity to present a coherent argument. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Just like in the politics thread when someone pops in with a "lol leftys on ere" zinger, it's always the same. The contrarians who totally lack the cognitive capacity to present a coherent argument. 

That's because there's isn't a serious argument against taking action that isn't based on short term self interest. The scientific facts regarding temperature increases are irrefutable (unless one can prove the entire climate science corps is in on something) and we're already seeing the consequences.

 

I would love, however, for someone to come in here and post an eloquent defence of why the long term (and therefore action in this case) doesn't matter from a moral standpoint, we can let the world burn to be king of the ashes for a short time and therefore justify no action on climate change. It would be really interesting to read.

Edited 21 January by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Posthorn54 said:

Climate change comedians on here ha ha 

Hi Don

[Trav Le Bleu]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

No, most certainly not.

 

But should the worst happen, it needs to be known by everyone who comes afterwards who was responsible. So there can be accountability for those left who were responsible, and generally for the record.

 

Of course, thankfully we're not at that stage yet.

Don't need to care if you can plunder Greenland.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

Just like in the politics thread when someone pops in with a "lol leftys on ere" zinger, it's always the same. The contrarians who totally lack the cognitive capacity to present a coherent argument. 

It's even more depressing when they're 70 years old. Indulgent denialism doesn't even start to cover it.

Edited 21 January by HighPeakFox

[Nuge]

Why would most of the climate change deniers care when they're not gonna be around to see the consequences anyway. Trump especially... he's gonna be dead in 15-20 years. Why would he care. Can I make money now, gotta make money now. 

Sadly this isn't going away anytime soon. We have an intentionally divisive ignorant man as arguably the most powerful person in the world, with his followers seeing him as a hero. Good times.

[leicsmac]

It's come to a pretty pass when it's the Chinese among the highest power nations appearing to take the environmental future of planet the most seriously in terms of government action.

[Zear0]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's come to a pretty pass when it's the Chinese among the highest power nations appearing to take the environmental future of planet the most seriously in terms of government action.

I think they're dealing with it the right way. There are legions of people who either don't believe it (minority) or simply don't care about it (majority). If you turn it from an ideological, it's the right thing to do argument, into an economic one where you can make it cheaper for consumers, the problem will start to be progressed. Look at the car thread, us EV folk arnt buying these cars for moral reasons, it's the tax benefits and running costs.

 

Unfortunately we've seen the incredibly successful lobbying efforts in making people believe hydrocarbons (unsubsidised) are cheaper than renewables. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I think they're dealing with it the right way. There are legions of people who either don't believe it (minority) or simply don't care about it (majority). If you turn it from an ideological, it's the right thing to do argument, into an economic one where you can make it cheaper for consumers, the problem will start to be progressed. Look at the car thread, us EV folk arnt buying these cars for moral reasons, it's the tax benefits and running costs.

 

Unfortunately we've seen the incredibly successful lobbying efforts in making people believe hydrocarbons (unsubsidised) are cheaper than renewables. 

I would have thought the simple point of "pay some to fix this now or lose much more, probably everything, later" would be enough of an economic argument, but clearly, as you say, that's not fast-food enough for most people's taste.

 

It may well be that the economic way is the most effective way to go, but what that does mean is running things to the very edge before enough people give a shit to spend on change. And that might not be wise given the stakes involved go from hundreds of millions dead or displaced right up to catastrophic civilisational collapse. But...it may be the way we end up heading anyway.

[Otis]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

I think they're dealing with it the right way. There are legions of people who either don't believe it (minority) or simply don't care about it (majority). If you turn it from an ideological, it's the right thing to do argument, into an economic one where you can make it cheaper for consumers, the problem will start to be progressed. Look at the car thread, us EV folk arnt buying these cars for moral reasons, it's the tax benefits and running costs.

 

Unfortunately we've seen the incredibly successful lobbying efforts in making people believe hydrocarbons (unsubsidised) are cheaper than renewables. 

The thing is EVs and the rest of the country cannot currently survive on just renewables. This weekend for example 60% of electric produced came from gas. 

Which also makes a mockery of using ASHP's for environmental reasons., may as well feed the cheaper gas directly into a standard boiler.

There's a long way to go before renewables are the answer and 2030 will never be achieved.

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, Otis said:

The thing is EVs and the rest of the country cannot currently survive on just renewables. This weekend for example 60% of electric produced came from gas. 

Which also makes a mockery of using ASHP's for environmental reasons., may as well feed the cheaper gas directly into a standard boiler.

There's a long way to go before renewables are the answer and 2030 will never be achieved.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/uk-energy-could-be-green-by-2030#:~:text=Renewables are the cheapest way,completely green energy by 2030.

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, Otis said:

The thing is EVs and the rest of the country cannot currently survive on just renewables. This weekend for example 60% of electric produced came from gas. 

Which also makes a mockery of using ASHP's for environmental reasons., may as well feed the cheaper gas directly into a standard boiler.

There's a long way to go before renewables are the answer and 2030 will never be achieved.

Should have said low carbon rather than renewables as agreed they can't power the entire country. 

 

At least with EV/ASHPs, you have the option to run them on renewables, which you don't with a gas boiler.  Yes, 60% might have been from gas (take your word for it) this weekend, but last April 92% of all energy was from renewables.  If the 60%/8% was nuclear, hydro or other 24/7 low emission generators it wouldn't be a problem at all.

[Otis]

13 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Should have said low carbon rather than renewables as agreed they can't power the entire country. 

 

At least with EV/ASHPs, you have the option to run them on renewables, which you don't with a gas boiler.  Yes, 60% might have been from gas (take your word for it) this weekend, but last April 92% of all energy was from renewables.  If the 60%/8% was nuclear, hydro or other 24/7 low emission generators it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Except most people have gas boilers to heat their homes, so gas will still be needed for decades.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Should have said low carbon rather than renewables as agreed they can't power the entire country. 

 

At least with EV/ASHPs, you have the option to run them on renewables, which you don't with a gas boiler.  Yes, 60% might have been from gas (take your word for it) this weekend, but last April 92% of all energy was from renewables.  If the 60%/8% was nuclear, hydro or other 24/7 low emission generators it wouldn't be a problem at all.

I don't get why some people think this future isn't possible, and I certainly struggle to consider why they think isn't necessary.

 

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

That's because there's isn't a serious argument against taking action that isn't based on short term self interest. The scientific facts regarding temperature increases are irrefutable (unless one can prove the entire climate science corps is in on something) and we're already seeing the consequences.

 

I would love, however, for someone to come in here and post an eloquent defence of why the long term (and therefore action in this case) doesn't matter from a moral standpoint, we can let the world burn to be king of the ashes for a short time and therefore justify no action on climate change. It would be really interesting to read.

This still stands.

[Otis]

22 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/news/uk-energy-could-be-green-by-2030#:~:text=Renewables are the cheapest way,completely green energy by 2030.

Interesting read. But pie in the sky. 

There is absolutely no way the UK will be running on 100 renewable energy by 2030.

No more petrol, diesel or gas in 5 years time? Was this written whilst under some serious medication?

[Otis]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't get why some people think this future isn't possible, and

At some point in the future maybe but not in the next 10 -20 years and certainly not by 2030.