FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Earth Hour 2016,,, are you in?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Earth Hour 2016 will be held on Saturday 19 March between 8.30PM and 9.30PM in your local time zone. The event is held worldwide towards the end of March annually, encouraging individuals, communities households and businesses to turn off their non-essential lights for one hour as a symbol for their commitment to the planet......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inzi LTV/TS
over a year ago

The Garden of Eden in Beautiful North Wales

Does that include chargers for toys?

If so, it'll be a hard one...

Scuse the pun!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

I should be in bed, all things going to plan...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

In all honesty I won't be making any special effort ......

I like to think I've already modified my energy consumption to a point it would become counter effective for me to meet the Earth-Hour criteria as I would need too turn my lights on, just so I could turn them off for an hour....

So bollix to it......

Wears my candle

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *cduck and Blue eyesCouple
over a year ago

nr chester


"In all honesty I won't be making any special effort ......

I like to think I've already modified my energy consumption to a point it would become counter effective for me to meet the Earth-Hour criteria as I would need too turn my lights on, just so I could turn them off for an hour....

So bollix to it......

Wears my candle

"
. Eeek excited should be able to get myself and mr cmy a meet, as no one will be able to see what we look like I'm all about saving the planet

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *r ManxMan
over a year ago

NeverWhere

Ill be at a blues gig so maybe using candles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I should be in bed, all things going to plan..."

Show off!

We will join in, candles at the ready. Are candles allowed?

Sarah

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ill be at a blues gig so maybe using candles "

Accoustic or wind-up amps?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well I intend to be in a pub / restaurant eating lots of food and drinking lots of drink at that time, so be definition our house lights will be off so glad to know I'll be 'doing my bit'

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Won't be home at that precise time, I'll make sure to leave all my lights on though. Might even do an empty cycle on the washing machine, tumble dryer and dishwasher as well as leaving my three tellys on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

When I'm in, I usually only have a table lamp on anyway, but that's only so I can see what the fuck I'm typing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shan't be doing anything different to appease the tree huggers .

Might just turn a few more on just for the sheer satisfaction of knowing it'll wind them up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"I should be in bed, all things going to plan...

Show off!

We will join in, candles at the ready. Are candles allowed?

Sarah"

I'll be in London, in luxury, with a fair-weather friend (or two) for company

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully "

Where do you stand on marginal gains..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully

Where do you stand on marginal gains..?

"
.

Err yeah they sound great, it's just that three papers from the last 5 or 6 years show that most "energy efficent" items actually increase c02 levels, either because they take alot more c02 to build than they save.... Or people are just human and use it more because it's cheaper to run!.

Ie,There's been no net gains from cars doing 40% more mpg because we're doing 40% more driving

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shan't be doing anything different to appease the tree huggers .

Might just turn a few more on just for the sheer satisfaction of knowing it'll wind them up "
.

There's always a certain amount of self destruction within a human!, it's in our nature

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully

Where do you stand on marginal gains..?

.

Err yeah they sound great, it's just that three papers from the last 5 or 6 years show that most "energy efficent" items actually increase c02 levels, either because they take alot more c02 to build than they save.... Or people are just human and use it more because it's cheaper to run!.

Ie,There's been no net gains from cars doing 40% more mpg because we're doing 40% more driving"

So is slowing down the rate of increase a pointless endeavour ...or a step in the right direction albeit on a moving walkway that is travelling backwards

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully

Where do you stand on marginal gains..?

.

Err yeah they sound great, it's just that three papers from the last 5 or 6 years show that most "energy efficent" items actually increase c02 levels, either because they take alot more c02 to build than they save.... Or people are just human and use it more because it's cheaper to run!.

Ie,There's been no net gains from cars doing 40% more mpg because we're doing 40% more driving

So is slowing down the rate of increase a pointless endeavour ...or a step in the right direction albeit on a moving walkway that is travelling backwards "
.

Well according to my mate kev, we've gotta move towards a 0% emission economy by 2036, so that's now a 9%per year reduction and that's pretty hard to do(mainly because we've spent 35 years arguing about it, it would have only been a 0.6%decrease per year if we'd started all those years back). In light of this and the fact we'll most likely fail,I think we've gotta be honest about what's now going to happen with warming and those impacts are unavoidable. So yes to conclude we've gotta get off c02 as fast as possible (like yesterday) to avoid not 2 degrees as that not realistic but 5 or 6 or even 10 degrees.

.

.

There was a peer reviewed paper written about 7 years ago that's still held true that shows were in a strange position... It showed that the only way to avoid the absolute worst of climate change was complete deindustrialization.. However... It also showed that sulphate aerosols emitted from industrialisation c02 output was the actually giving us upto 2 degrees cooling and if we packed it in tomorrow we'd be at runaway stage within a few years!.

Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's a waste of fucking time those that do, will do and those that don't give a shit won't give a shit!.

I'll be waiting till the following month when those that have influence will sign the Paris agreement.... Hopefully

Where do you stand on marginal gains..?

.

Err yeah they sound great, it's just that three papers from the last 5 or 6 years show that most "energy efficent" items actually increase c02 levels, either because they take alot more c02 to build than they save.... Or people are just human and use it more because it's cheaper to run!.

Ie,There's been no net gains from cars doing 40% more mpg because we're doing 40% more driving

So is slowing down the rate of increase a pointless endeavour ...or a step in the right direction albeit on a moving walkway that is travelling backwards .

Well according to my mate kev, we've gotta move towards a 0% emission economy by 2036, so that's now a 9%per year reduction and that's pretty hard to do(mainly because we've spent 35 years arguing about it, it would have only been a 0.6%decrease per year if we'd started all those years back). In light of this and the fact we'll most likely fail,I think we've gotta be honest about what's now going to happen with warming and those impacts are unavoidable. So yes to conclude we've gotta get off c02 as fast as possible (like yesterday) to avoid not 2 degrees as that not realistic but 5 or 6 or even 10 degrees.

.

.

There was a peer reviewed paper written about 7 years ago that's still held true that shows were in a strange position... It showed that the only way to avoid the absolute worst of climate change was complete deindustrialization.. However... It also showed that sulphate aerosols emitted from industrialisation c02 output was the actually giving us upto 2 degrees cooling and if we packed it in tomorrow we'd be at runaway stage within a few years!.

Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place "

I'm still reeling from the stark conclusions of Saul Griffiths " Climate Change Revisited "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ady LickWoman
over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

I'll be in London with my big sister. So....sorry I won't be able to do my bit this year

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *enard ArgenteMan
over a year ago

London and France

Pointless tokenism.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I will have d*unk about 13 pints of free real ale by 8.30pm and wont give a fuck what planet im on tbh

Well acually its £10 a ticket to the brewery but still a bargain

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm still reeling from the stark conclusions of Saul Griffiths " Climate Change Revisited.

.

.

Well all he's doing is the sums and coming up with the same conclusions that people like guy McPherson was called an "alarmist whacko" for 12 years ago!.

The science over the last 5 to 10 years is coming to conclusions that were just not going to get away with it anymore, that 2 degrees is now a given in no more than ..15 years, could be 10!.

The IPCC themselves a conservative body has stated in their last report, it's now irreversible without massive Geo engineering, there models that got slagged off as rubbish have been proven to be way too conservative, things it was predicting in 2050 have already been observed this year and the IPCC have cut this 2100 year from the card, that alone was political nonsense, that they and the UN and the EU and the world bank, there latest reports are now 2050 to see the worst of the change, I mean it's not our grandkids or our children that's going to deal with it anymore it's anybody under 35(which coincidentally is the age you'd need to be over to have seen any month that got below average global temperatures).

So no, we can't fix it!, it's coming, were only starting to see it's impacts in refugees and water shortages, crop yields, high impact storms and it's going to get a whole lot worse over the next ten years for about 800 million people.

By the numbers

3.5 billon people live within 150 miles of the coast.

1.2 billon people are food insecure, that means they spend over 50% of their weekly wage on just food, a doubling of cost of base food like wheat, barley, soya would see them stave.

The world's biggest grain/crop areas are in the large interior of the continents, there all predicted to be the worse hit and over 40% are already either in a drought or are showing signs of long term drought, these include Texas, California, Western Australia, Ukraine, southern Russia.

35% of the world's aquifers are dropping below 30% remaining, the Yemens main problem is it's entire gdp is growing stuff and they have emptied their only aquifer, there water table has dropped to 190 feet, there not alone China has seen rice yields drop for first time in years as they also have depleted several aquifers and water is kinda essential for rice!.

400 and odd nuclear power stations in the world and about 300 are on the coast or tidal rivers, if sea level rises like it's predicted, all these will be at risk, if it's worse than predicted 100 will be under water, it takes about 20 years to decommission ONE and a shit load of money so we need to get moving on that front if we need to decommission a hundred?.

.

In the last five years despite all these so called c02 friendly initiatives, c02 output has gone UP 18%,.... Once it's entered the atmosphere it's there for at least a thousand years, despite websites still trotting out nonsense like 350.org, and there's a known 10 year lag meaning what we're feeling today is 2006 c02 output and on that note, 2008 the year where world GDP crumpled and banks collapsed saw a 4% INCREASE in c02!.

Apart from all that most of the very clever engineers like Saul grithis will tell you it takes about 100 gigatons of hydrocarbon fuel to convert your infrastructure to carbon neutral which is enough to tip us over 4 degrees let alone 2!.... Were currently emitting 2200 tonnes a second and counting!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Somebody messaged me earlier that brightened my day so in lew of that here's the good news!.

.

.

According to kev ...There's a 92% chance of avoiding a 2 degree rise if we cut c02 by 60% in the next 10 years.

This falls to a 50/50 chance if we cut it by 2035.

However the best research shows that going over 2 degrees to 2.5- 3 degrees becomes self reinforcing, human activity won't matter at that point and the temperature escalates rapidly through natural means!.

The chance of staying under 1 degree is zero!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top