Climate Change - a poll

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/03/saraji-qld-bhp-bma-coal-project-approved-2055-angering-climate-groups
 

 

I agree. The Guardian is very poor.

I couldn't care less where you got it from, they're phasing it out in the same way we're phasing fossil fuels out. Quite why you're celebrating the ignorance of science I'm not sure, but then I've always thought it would be wonderful to be free of intelligent thought. 

Edited 18 hours ago by CornwallFox

[worthosoriginals]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

Sounds a bit…conspiracy like! 

Moscow bots been working on him?

[leicsmac]

Well, people are of course free to think what they like on this matter. 

 

What's important is some of those thoughts never becoming part of political policymaking. Or if they do, the responsibility for the (possibly very dire) consequences of that policymaking being on the heads of every single person who advocated for it. 

[leicsmac]

And guys, while politics is a part of all this, in the interests of keeping this thread open and clear, please try to stick to the scientific element of it all, please?

[The Year Of The Fox]

26 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I couldn't care less where you got it from, they're phasing it out in the same way we're phasing fossil fuels out. Quite why you're celebrating the ignorance of science I'm not sure, but then I've always thought it would be wonderful to be free of intelligent thought. 

Who says I’m ignoring science?

[kenny]

37 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

They're phasing coal out. Here's the recent and future energy mix in Australia.

 

 

You seem to get your information on most subjects from very poor sources.

That's pretty grim reading from a country that has some of the highest solar potential in the world. Their coal exports to China are rising up fast as well which is probably why the new mines are opening.

 

If they were ran by the Tories, their 2040 mix would have been in place by 2020.

[CornwallFox]

9 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Who says I’m ignoring science?

What effect do you think jackdaw will have on medium or long term energy prices or availability?

[st albans fox]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

What effect do you think jackdaw will have on medium or long term energy prices or availability?

Short termism re govt coffers (and presumably if it brings gas onshore by the end of the year then it should help a little with our energy security this winter)

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, kenny said:

That's pretty grim reading from a country that has some of the highest solar potential in the world. Their coal exports to China are rising up fast as well which is probably why the new mines are opening.

 

If they were ran by the Tories, their 2040 mix would have been in place by 2020.

Given their current stance on this particular matter, I'm not so sure about that tbh. 

 

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Short termism re govt coffers (and presumably if it brings gas onshore by the end of the year then it should help a little with our energy security this winter)

 

 

 

... and then such money coming in would have to be weighed against the costs going out to deal with the consequences of increasing emissions. 

 

As per earlier, as long as the proceeds from this development are used as exclusively as possible to bring the UK off fossil fuel burning reliance for generating energy, then I'm not against the decision broadly. But if folks can't or won't understand the direction our biosphere is heading if emissions continue from the UK or anyone else, then that's not going to stop those mentioned consequences - and it won't stop those who are left in vastly reduced circumstances from seeking to hold them responsible for "killing the world", either. 

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Given their current stance on this particular matter, I'm not so sure about that tbh. 

 

... and then such money coming in would have to be weighed against the costs going out to deal with the consequences of increasing emissions. 

 

As per earlier, as long as the proceeds from this development are used as exclusively as possible to bring the UK off fossil fuel burning reliance for generating energy, then I'm not against the decision broadly. But if folks can't or won't understand the direction our biosphere is heading if emissions continue from the UK or anyone else, then that's not going to stop those mentioned consequences - and it won't stop those who are left in vastly reduced circumstances from seeking to hold them responsible for "killing the world", either. 

Stance?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

Stance?

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan-for-britain

 

The part concerning energy basically conceding the effects of climate change as a fait accompli and looking to greenlight projects that will cause large emissions without any hint of transition away from fossil fuels for energy generation (apart from a passing nod to fission projects).

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8jzmw0dk90o

 

Record wildfires that destroyed homes, scorched thousands of hectares of countryside and stretched fire crews across the UK exposed weaknesses in preparedness, a committee of MPs has warned.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said firefighting aircraft, disposable barbecue restrictions and a public awareness campaign were needed to tackle rising wildfire risk.

The report follows this year's severe wildfire season, including fires that prompted military deployment in south Wales, destroyed 19 homes in Stourbridge and scorched land in the Cairngorms, Staffordshire and Suffolk.

The government said improving wildfire preparedness was a "major priority".

A report by the cross-party committee said fires could no longer be regarded as rare or exceptional events, warning that climate change was increasing both their frequency and severity.

 

On the topic of consequences and with respect up the current discussion. 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan-for-britain

 

The part concerning energy basically conceding the effects of climate change as a fait accompli and looking to greenlight projects that will cause large emissions without any hint of transition away from fossil fuels for energy generation (apart from a passing nod to fission projects).

I suspect that is because the transition is well underway and is well ahead of countries such as USA, China or Australia.

 

Chuck in some sensible nuclear investment alongside the current green energy mix and the grid is as decarbonised as far as is practical. I checked today, we have the 4th greenest electric generation for large countries in the world at present and it's improving.

 

The UK has done a brilliant job, it's a shame that we don't seem to realise it.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, kenny said:

I suspect that is because the transition is well underway and is well ahead of countries such as USA, China or Australia.

 

Chuck in some sensible nuclear investment alongside the current green energy mix and the grid is as decarbonised as far as is practical. I checked today, we have the 4th greenest electric generation for large countries in the world at present and it's improving.

 

The UK has done a brilliant job, it's a shame that we don't seem to realise it.

I wonder what the definition is for "large country" is in this case.

 

Anyway, it's true that the UK is doing a good job right now, so why backslide in the way the UK Tories are suggesting?

 

NB. I've no idea why people immediately look down their nose at China on this one (who build several times more renewable infrastructure every year than all others put together) rather than the US, India and Russia (who all have the economic resources to change but simply choose not to because it suits them.)

 

Edit: actually, I do, it's because Red Scare/Yellow Peril* (*delete as appropriate)

Edited 16 hours ago by leicsmac

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wonder what the definition is for "large country" is in this case.

 

Anyway, it's true that the UK is doing a good job right now, so why backslide in the way the UK Tories are suggesting?

 

NB. I've no idea why people immediately look down their nose at China on this one (who build several times more renewable infrastructure every year than all others put together) rather than the US, India and Russia (who all have the economic resources to change but simply choose not to because it suits them.)

 

Edit: actually, I do, it's because Red Scare/Yellow Peril* (*delete as appropriate)

Probably because of their grim record on human rights and atrocious view on the environment?

 

Yes they are building lots of green energy, but still produce twice as much carbon per GW as the UK does.

 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, kenny said:

Probably because of their grim record on human rights and atrocious view on the environment?

 

Yes they are building lots of green energy, but still produce twice as much carbon per GW as the UK does.

 

 

And compared on those matters to the other three nations mentioned above, as opposed to the UK?

 

There are far more deserving, and far more lazy and pivotal, scapegoats on this issue. 

[st albans fox]

Dale Vince seems very relaxed about jackdaw on the basis that it isn’t very big and the gas will be used domestically so it has a low carbon footprint compared to the gas we bring in by sea 

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

What effect do you think jackdaw will have on medium or long term energy prices or availability?

Negligible I’d say

 

Means I’m less likely to be forced to turn to other fuel sources at great expense to myself in the future though 

 

 

Applogies on the late reply. Was just commissioning a 50kw natural gas boiler. Luckily the big house heated up really quickly so I could get home faster

Edited 16 hours ago by The Year Of The Fox

[kenny]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And compared on those matters to the other three nations mentioned above, as opposed to the UK?

 

There are far more deserving, and far more lazy and pivotal, scapegoats on this issue. 

I think putting china in with India, Russia and the USA in the lack of morals corner is absolutely reasonable.

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, kenny said:

I think putting china in with India, Russia and the USA in the lack of morals corner is absolutely reasonable.

 

 

If we're looking at an "overall" score (rather than just this one matter), then I wouldn't disagree with that. 

[LCFCJohn]

2 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

I do find it quite funny that there's this insinuation from some quarters that the government for some reason want the migrants/Asylum seekers to continue to arrive. I'm not someone who considers the small boats to be my main concern, though I accept that it is very much a problem, but If they could stop this issue for good tomorrow (whilst following due process), do you honestly think they wouldn't? It would be such an easy win politically and would shoot the Reform fox dead, as they don't really have much else to run on. 

There’s absolutely no reason why they’d want illegal immigrants coming here. 
 

I agree fully with you. I think it is a problem and want to see it addressed but following due process. But likewise it’s not all I think about and I am more concerned about the safety of my wife and daughter when it comes to those who follow Reform. 
 

You’re absolutely correct that they could only benefit from addressing it. Even hardcore lefties surely wouldn’t have a problem with measures being in place to stop the crossing at source!

[Kisnorbo fox]

56 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Negligible I’d say

 

Means I’m less likely to be forced to turn to other fuel sources at great expense to myself in the future though 

 

 

Applogies on the late reply. Was just commissioning a 50kw natural gas boiler. Luckily the big house heated up really quickly so I could get home faster

Good on you mate ! And bravo to the customer for doing it properly 👏 the looney ed miliband types on this thread will be having a mild heart attack 🤣

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Good on you mate ! And bravo to the customer for doing it properly 👏 the looney ed miliband types on this thread will be having a mild heart attack 🤣

I wonder if the families of the roughly 2900 people who died as a result of the heatwave this summer find all of this equally amusing. 

[Kisnorbo fox]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wonder if the families of the roughly 2900 people who died as a result of the heatwave this summer find all of this equally amusing. 

2900 ? Is that it ? That’s a drop in the ocean really isn’t it…..

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Kisnorbo fox

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, Samilktray said:

I was actually reading the comment section from a post on Facebook about the ghost flights this week, very funny reading tbf and from exactly the types on there you'd expect 

My client is involved in this and was showing me the posts today!!!! It all sounds illegal (he insists the law hasn’t caught up yet). They farm bots to post nonsense on happy clapper social media outlets like fb and TikTok. Rubbish that no one would believe, like ghost flights, but in fact there are armies of jet2 happy clappers that do believe it. They go to the pub and tell their happy clapper community and engage with the posts. The bit I don’t get is the ones making uk the rubbish then bet on the engagement stats of said posts on kalshi via an OTC and make a fair whack. 
It’s mad that anyone would believe this rubbish but as he was saying today you have no idea the level of gumph happy clappers will not only believe but tell their friends about. Backs up my thoughts that you can make a killing from these people if you know how. Climate change denial being an easy win 

Edited 14 hours ago by grobyfox1990