General News Thread

[kenny]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Au contraire, I'm sure that you're smart enough to understand the points I'm making, but if you simply choose not to engage with them then it would be more honest to simply say so. I'm not prepared to be gaslit into thinking that actually looking at this from a viewpoint that takes into account both global and long term outcomes is somehow abstract or difficult to grasp. Not when it's both rather easy to understand and critically important.

 

But with respect to the mechanics of the solution, a suite of renewable tailored to location and fission generation is likely called for. How that is applied is one for the logistics staff, but it does need to be done. 

 

 

Hands up. No idea.

 

To someone cleverer than me it may mean something. 

 

No gaslighting here, I think I'm just a bit thick.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, kenny said:

Hands up. No idea.

 

To someone cleverer than me it may mean something. 

 

No gaslighting here, I think I'm just a bit thick.

I'll take that at face value then, but given your past contributions here I wouldn't say that you were even a bit thick tbh. 

 

I'll try to clarify a little more. 

 

The way we (humans as a whole) are using gas, oil and coal burning for generating energy has caused a large (by comparison) increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it's been shown that this is by far the biggest cause of such emissions.) This increase is driving an increase in global average temperature. That increase is then resulting in many more instances of extreme weather events that cause a lot of damage in both money and lives. As temperatures continue to increase, so will the number of those events, so will the damage, so will the cost. The increase isn't linear, either - as things go up, even small differences in temperature will result in big differences in events and damage. 

 

It's been reasonably calculated that the cost of this damage, if left unchecked, is much higher (as in at least tens, maybe hundreds of times) than the cost it would take to install renewable and fission related infrastructure across the UK and the world. 

 

So, the choice from an economic  perspective seems obvious: the biggest thing stopping appears to be the fact that it needs a largish investment up front and the political will to carry out a project that will last for much longer than one democratic term. And also opposition from those who have money and power now and don't want to give even a little bit of it up. 

Edited 11 April by leicsmac

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll take that at face value then, but given your past contributions here I wouldn't say that you were even a bit thick tbh. 

 

I'll try to clarify a little more. 

 

The way we (humans as a whole) are using gas, oil and coal burning for generating energy has caused a large (by comparison) increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it's been shown that this is by far the biggest cause of such emissions.) This increase is driving an increase in global average temperature. That increase is then resulting in many more instances of extreme weather events that cause a lot of damage in both money and lives. As temperatures continue to increase, so will the number of those events, so will the damage, so will the cost. The increase isn't linear, either - as things go up, even small differences in temperature will result in big differences in events and damage. 

 

It's been reasonably calculated that the cost of this damage, if left unchecked, is much higher (as in at least tens, maybe hundreds of times) than the cost it would take to install renewable and fission related infrastructure across the UK and the world. 

 

So, the choice from an economic  perspective seems obvious: the biggest thing stopping appears to be the fact that it needs a largish investment up front and the political will to carry out a project that will last for much longer than one democratic term. And also opposition from those who have money and power now and don't want to give even a little bit of it up. 

So using less is good?

 

Which is what we are doing?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

So using less is good?

 

Which is what we are doing?

Using less, on the route to using enough "less" to not emit any excess carbon emissions at all as soon as feasible (hence "net zero") is good, yes. 

 

And for that to work, the amount of gas, oil and coal burned for energy generation has to be "next to none", rather than just "less".

[Free Falling Foxes]

Absolutely loved watching all the Artemis moon shot coverage these last few days.

Brilliant achievement. 

 

Just watching them onstage during that conference though, had me turning off.

Blubbering as they spoke, comments like, 'Love you guys' and tear filled eyes - yuk.

 

I wish anyone but the the Yanks had achieved it.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Absolutely loved watching all the Artemis moon shot coverage these last few days.

Brilliant achievement. 

 

Just watching them onstage during that conference though, had me turning off.

Blubbering as they spoke, comments like, 'Love you guys' and tear filled eyes - yuk.

 

I wish anyone but the the Yanks had achieved it.

Well, as for the event of actually being the next to land a human on the Moon, you might get your wish. The Chinese have a plan in place, and they're on schedule. 

[Robo61]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Using less, on the route to using enough "less" to not emit any excess carbon emissions at all as soon as feasible (hence "net zero") is good, yes. 

 

And for that to work, the amount of gas, oil and coal burned for energy generation has to be "next to none", rather than just "less".

I am no expert, but shouldn't it be essential rather than simply good. As I understand it, C02 stays in the air practically forever, something I don't think most people get. So if we continue pumping any amount in without taking at least the same amount out, then tempartures will simply carrying on rising. Rendering human life practically impossible at some point in the future.  The debate is more around at one point we need ro get there. As it happens I agree with you on this, many for self interested reasons in my experience do not.  Few people it seems to me want their cushy (in historical terms) lifes interupted by such inconveniences.

[CornwallFox]

14 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

I am no expert, but shouldn't it be essential rather than simply good. As I understand it, C02 stays in the air practically forever, something I don't think most people get. So if we continue pumping any amount in without taking at least the same amount out, then tempartures will simply carrying on rising. Rendering human life practically impossible at some point in the future.  The debate is more around at one point we need ro get there. As it happens I agree with you on this, many for self interested reasons in my experience do not.  Few people it seems to me want their cushy (in historical terms) lifes interupted by such inconveniences.

Essentially I think the last bit is it. 

The very wealthy oil billionaires are happy to f the world by paying for media underhandedness and political stagnation. 

But ordinary people allowing themselves to fall for the narrative that it's uneconomic, unachievable, or even not required, do so willingly.

 

It's blindly obvious that the climate is changing. We all know it snows less than when we were kids. We all know summer temperatures are far higher. We all know the seasons seem messed up. We all know there's less dead insects on cars than 30 years ago. So there's no sensible reason why anybody would believe a non scientist over a scientist. 

 

Countries across Europe and the world are operating with much high levels of renewables than the UK. There are countries operating with next to zero fossil fuels. So it's clearly very possible. Yeah we still get nonsense about needing a practical plan as if it's some unachievable thing, as if sticking some relatively cheap and easy in install solar panels and wind farms up it's somehow more difficult than exploring and extracting fossil fuels from miles under a sea. As if Britain has loads of days when the sun doesn't rise (because it doesn't need to be sunny) or the wind doesn't blow off the coast of Scotland or wherever.

 

It's disingenuous, unambitious nonsense by people that don't want to slightest change in how they live. Predictably led by the older generations. Well the reality they need to be awake to is that things are changing. Climatically. They're changing rapidly and if it isn't anyway too late even the elderly will see extreme results within their lifetimes. 

Edited 12 April by CornwallFox

[Robo61]

15 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Essentially I think the last bit is it. 

The very wealthy oil billionaires are happy to f the world by paying for media underhandedness and political stagnation. 

But ordinary people allowing themselves to fall for the narrative that it's uneconomic, unachievable, or even not required, do so willingly.

 

It's blindly obvious that the climate is changing. We all know it snows less than when we were kids. We all know summer temperatures are far higher. We all know the seasons seem messed up. We all know there's less dead insects on cars than 30 years ago. So there's no sensible reason why anybody would believe a non scientist over a scientist. 

 

Countries across Europe and the world are operating with much high levels of renewables than the UK. There are countries operating with next to zero fossil fuels. So it's clearly very possible. Yeah we still get nonsense about needing a practical plan as if it's some unachievable thing, as if sticking some relatively cheap and easy in install solar panels and wind farms up it's somehow more difficult than exploring and extracting fossil fuels from miles under a sea. As if Britain has loads of days when the sun doesn't rise (because it doesn't need to be sunny) or the wind doesn't blow off the coast of Scotland or wherever.

 

It's disingenuous, unambitious nonsense by people that don't want to slightest change in how they live. Predictably led by the older generations. Well the reality they need to be awake to is that things are changing. Climatically. They're changing rapidly and if it isn't anyway too late even the elderly will see extreme results within their lifetimes. 

The vast majority of my friends except the science and understand the need and even want it to happen but most,  not all, are still preferring to buy ICE vehicles despite me telling them how great they are.  I think it is change for them they are afraid of as much as inconvenience.  I am, by the way, a boomer so please don't tie us all with the same brush,  I know the above doesn't exactly do that but plenty do and I'm not sure it deviding the generations is any help..  

[CornwallFox]

37 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

The vast majority of my friends except the science and understand the need and even want it to happen but most,  not all, are still preferring to buy ICE vehicles despite me telling them how great they are.  I think it is change for them they are afraid of as much as inconvenience.  I am, by the way, a boomer so please don't tie us all with the same brush,  I know the above doesn't exactly do that but plenty do and I'm not sure it deviding the generations is any help..  

I realise not all boomers/older people have the same view. It's just unfortunate that it is that section of society essentially keeping the anti-climate brigade in business. If only the youngest generations voted at the same levels it wouldn't matter, but unfortunately they don't, so it does. 

 

I was reading the other day that Norway sells around 97% electric cars now, admittedly I think through force of legislation, but it can be done. But Britain, as usual, outsources it's infrastructure to the private sector so we don't have enough chargers etc. Our state needs to be much more involved and leading on building infrastructure. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

I am no expert, but shouldn't it be essential rather than simply good. As I understand it, C02 stays in the air practically forever, something I don't think most people get. So if we continue pumping any amount in without taking at least the same amount out, then tempartures will simply carrying on rising. Rendering human life practically impossible at some point in the future.  The debate is more around at one point we need ro get there. As it happens I agree with you on this, many for self interested reasons in my experience do not.  Few people it seems to me want their cushy (in historical terms) lifes interupted by such inconveniences.

It is absolutely essential, yes. I was rather understating things by just saying "good".

 

Absolutely right with the rest of it there - and the sooner we get "there", the less damage will be caused.

 

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Essentially I think the last bit is it. 

The very wealthy oil billionaires are happy to f the world by paying for media underhandedness and political stagnation. 

But ordinary people allowing themselves to fall for the narrative that it's uneconomic, unachievable, or even not required, do so willingly.

 

It's blindly obvious that the climate is changing. We all know it snows less than when we were kids. We all know summer temperatures are far higher. We all know the seasons seem messed up. We all know there's less dead insects on cars than 30 years ago. So there's no sensible reason why anybody would believe a non scientist over a scientist. 

 

Countries across Europe and the world are operating with much high levels of renewables than the UK. There are countries operating with next to zero fossil fuels. So it's clearly very possible. Yeah we still get nonsense about needing a practical plan as if it's some unachievable thing, as if sticking some relatively cheap and easy in install solar panels and wind farms up it's somehow more difficult than exploring and extracting fossil fuels from miles under a sea. As if Britain has loads of days when the sun doesn't rise (because it doesn't need to be sunny) or the wind doesn't blow off the coast of Scotland or wherever.

 

It's disingenuous, unambitious nonsense by people that don't want to slightest change in how they live. Predictably led by the older generations. Well the reality they need to be awake to is that things are changing. Climatically. They're changing rapidly and if it isn't anyway too late even the elderly will see extreme results within their lifetimes. 

We don't even have to rely on anecdotes either - we have hard, reliable, conclusive scientific consensus of data that shows both the human contribution to carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution and how that increase in emissions is driving a temperature increase. We also have evidence as to what that increase is doing to the Earth (and to us) now, and a damn good idea of what it will do if left unchecked.

 

It is disingenuous, unambitious, and I would add horribly self-centred to that as well. But progress needs to be made in spite of that and them, or this era of humanity will be remembered by those who come after us as the one responsible for leaving them an Earth vastly less habitable than the one that we have now. The one that let the sixth biodiversity mass extinction event play out even though they had the power to stop it.

[kenny]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

I realise not all boomers/older people have the same view. It's just unfortunate that it is that section of society essentially keeping the anti-climate brigade in business. If only the youngest generations voted at the same levels it wouldn't matter, but unfortunately they don't, so it does. 

 

I was reading the other day that Norway sells around 97% electric cars now, admittedly I think through force of legislation, but it can be done. But Britain, as usual, outsources it's infrastructure to the private sector so we don't have enough chargers etc. Our state needs to be much more involved and leading on building infrastructure. 

Plenty of chargers, they are wholly unreliable is the main issue IMO.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Robo61 said:

The vast majority of my friends except the science and understand the need and even want it to happen but most,  not all, are still preferring to buy ICE vehicles despite me telling them how great they are.  I think it is change for them they are afraid of as much as inconvenience.  I am, by the way, a boomer so please don't tie us all with the same brush,  I know the above doesn't exactly do that but plenty do and I'm not sure it deviding the generations is any help..  

 

3 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

I realise not all boomers/older people have the same view. It's just unfortunate that it is that section of society essentially keeping the anti-climate brigade in business. If only the youngest generations voted at the same levels it wouldn't matter, but unfortunately they don't, so it does. 

 

I was reading the other day that Norway sells around 97% electric cars now, admittedly I think through force of legislation, but it can be done. But Britain, as usual, outsources it's infrastructure to the private sector so we don't have enough chargers etc. Our state needs to be much more involved and leading on building infrastructure. 

 

32 minutes ago, kenny said:

Plenty of chargers, they are wholly unreliable is the main issue IMO.

As an addendum to this, transportation is one part of the puzzle, but a much smaller one than power generation and so less worthy of attention. 

 

Don't let quibbling about it become a distraction from more vital areas of change. Yes, getting ICE vehicles off the road (for the most part) is a good thing to aim for, but changing up power generation infrastructure has to take priority. 

[Sampson]

Most important European election of the year today. But it’s the spillover over the next few days which could be key.

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Most important European election of the year today. But it’s the spillover over the next few days which could be key.

Looking forward to seeing the orange idiot losing his shit on truth social later

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Looking forward to seeing the orange idiot losing his shit on truth social later

I just hope when Orban does the inevitable “the election was rigged, rise up for me” schtick that Hungary does what Brazil did and what the US didn’t and throw the guy in prison for life for trying to subvert democracy. 

[Zear0]

Congratulations Orban!

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I just hope when Orban does the inevitable “the election was rigged, rise up for me” schtick that Hungary does what Brazil did and what the US didn’t and throw the guy in prison for life for trying to subvert democracy. 

I have no doubt that should Orban lose (which it looks like he may), he'll instigate some kind of measure, possibly violent, to stay in power. 

 

It's a matter of necessity that it doesn't succeed. 

[Zear0]

"In a lengthy Truth Social post, he said the US is going to start “BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz”.

 

[CruzNoir]

I never thought I’d mention the word impressive before I say moron 

 

but Trump really is an impressive moron 

 

his stupidness knows no bounds 

Edited 12 April by CruzNoir

[Sampson]

Is Trump really openly saying the US is going to block European, Chinese and Japanese boats through a piece of water halfway across the world from the US that the US has zero jurisdiction over?

 

Feck me. If we weren’t so exhausted by it all, this would have the feel of August 1914 to it.

 

He really is thrashing about trying to do anything he can to stuff the worms back into the can, but is only breaking the can even more as he does. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

It'd be hilarious to see the USA take on the rest of the world.

 

Essentially he's just creating more and more enemies.

Edited 12 April by Trav Le Bleu

[Sampson]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It'd be hilarious to see the USA take on the rest of the world.

 

Essentially he's just creating more and more enemies.

Their only allies left are Isreal and Russia. 
 

Has there been an instance since WW2 of a single nation causing so much destruction to its own reputation within the space of less than 18 months? 

[leicsmac]

Record turnout in the Hungarian election.

 

Usually that's better news for the challenger than the incumbent, but we'll see.

[st albans fox]

Trump mentions that we will help out with minesweepers in the gulf 

but we have no vessels within 2 weeks of there.

we actually withdrew a ship in January.