Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That was about the promises that citizens of other EU countries in the UK would see "no change". As I have written here before, that turned into "apply before you become unlawful and liable for removal"." Another way of phrasing that would be that they were told nothing would change, and it hasn't. The only action they had to perform was to fill in a simple form, which then guaranteed them their rights. After the Windrush scandal, it seems sensible to make sure that every EU citizen has proper paperwork to prove their residence rights. The Home Office is even considering new applications, several years after the deadline passed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That was about the promises that citizens of other EU countries in the UK would see "no change". As I have written here before, that turned into "apply before you become unlawful and liable for removal". Another way of phrasing that would be that they were told nothing would change, and it hasn't. The only action they had to perform was to fill in a simple form, which then guaranteed them their rights. After the Windrush scandal, it seems sensible to make sure that every EU citizen has proper paperwork to prove their residence rights. The Home Office is even considering new applications, several years after the deadline passed." And the additional costs, of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been asked if I am over-sensitive. Maybe I am. But the mis-selling of the referendum has been unbelievable. Axel Antoni was a spokesman for the EU citizens' rights group, the3million. Before the referendum, Antoni's own parents-in-law said they were going to vote against the UK's EU membership. Antoni said he was worried. But they said, "Oh, you've got nothing worry about. You won't have to do a thing. You won't be affected. It'll be fine. Gove said. Johnson said". That was about the promises that citizens of other EU countries in the UK would see "no change". As I have written here before, that turned into "apply before you become unlawful and liable for removal". The3million's Nicolas Hatton saw the 48%-52% result -- of those who could and did vote. He was reassured by the result - such a narrow result and so vague means not much will change, he thought. After Theresa May's speech at Mansion House, it was astonishing, it became more like the result had been 1%-99%. ... " Can you explain what you mean by this last paragraph. To my mind it doesn't matter whether the vote is won by 4% or 40%, a win is a win. I'm wondering if context matters and if so, how. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been asked if I am over-sensitive. Maybe I am. But the mis-selling of the referendum has been unbelievable. Axel Antoni was a spokesman for the EU citizens' rights group, the3million. Before the referendum, Antoni's own parents-in-law said they were going to vote against the UK's EU membership. Antoni said he was worried. But they said, "Oh, you've got nothing worry about. You won't have to do a thing. You won't be affected. It'll be fine. Gove said. Johnson said". That was about the promises that citizens of other EU countries in the UK would see "no change". As I have written here before, that turned into "apply before you become unlawful and liable for removal". The3million's Nicolas Hatton saw the 48%-52% result -- of those who could and did vote. He was reassured by the result - such a narrow result and so vague means not much will change, he thought. After Theresa May's speech at Mansion House, it was astonishing, it became more like the result had been 1%-99%. ... Can you explain what you mean by this last paragraph. To my mind it doesn't matter whether the vote is won by 4% or 40%, a win is a win. I'm wondering if context matters and if so, how." When a referendum on an outcome which is yet to be fully explained results in a narrow outcome, it’s probably not best to move in one of the harshest possible directions, is what I believe the poster is suggesting. At 52/48 we could have had a grown up discussion about an EFTA type arrangement. But May insisted on hard-Brexit and suggested that even no-deal would be bearable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison " A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it." Imagine if we'd have acted in time, we wouldn't be tied to externally priced oil and gas, we'd have energy independence and we'd be much better off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange how nobody wants to be a world leader in green tech. " Well China, Japan and the USA (plus many others, Germany, Sweden) are investing like they do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it." I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country?" As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. " Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison " Remember the former chancellor Philip Hammond saying UK could not afford the one million pound cost of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about " You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. " No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange how nobody wants to be a world leader in green tech. " Probably nothing to do with the fossil fuels industry donating to political parties world wide and receiving €123 billion in subsides and increasing every year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. " Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present." Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... " And once again, you’re basing your opinion on what you see as present day obstacles. They’ll be overcome in time (and once again, storage is the key here) But if we’d started this decades ago, we’d be in a far better place now. We’d have overcome many hurdles already and be far less reliant on imported energy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... " Maybe we could harness the energy you put in to arguing against using renewable energy. That would probably be enough to power Birmingham. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... " You know what would have beeen far too problematic to maintain once upon a time? Oil rigs and refineries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange how nobody wants to be a world leader in green tech. " it's not suprising imo, even if we agree it's needed. It feels like a version of prisoners dilemma. If I go first I beat all the costs but also gain from the benefits. If I go later then I get none of the costs and all of the benefits If no-one goes then then I feel the costs of climate change. I want to be a follower. But then so does everyone else. So nonone goes. And we all lose. That's why we need cooperation and / or penalties. That is how you break the dilema. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If nuclear is the answer does mean mean those who oppose climate pollution are actually happy with the chance of radioactive waste?" Nuclear waste can be (and is) reprocessed, though. It’s by no means a perfect fuel supply, but reliance on combustibles isn’t the answer, we all know that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If nuclear is the answer does mean mean those who oppose climate pollution are actually happy with the chance of radioactive waste? Nuclear waste can be (and is) reprocessed, though. It’s by no means a perfect fuel supply, but reliance on combustibles isn’t the answer, we all know that." It can be and is reprocessed. It can and does leak. I'm just asking if nuclear is the answer, are we happy with the risks involved? It seems strange to me that we want rid of climate pollution only to champion nuclear which can cause climate pollution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If nuclear is the answer does mean mean those who oppose climate pollution are actually happy with the chance of radioactive waste? Nuclear waste can be (and is) reprocessed, though. It’s by no means a perfect fuel supply, but reliance on combustibles isn’t the answer, we all know that. It can be and is reprocessed. It can and does leak. I'm just asking if nuclear is the answer, are we happy with the risks involved? It seems strange to me that we want rid of climate pollution only to champion nuclear which can cause climate pollution. " If you (not YOU) believe climate change is real and believe the human race is culpable and believe it is possible to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change...then we need to do something! At present it appears there is no energy source that solves the problem without creating other real or potential problems... So, there is a need for a risk analysis to weigh up pros and cons. Nuclear is not without risks, it is expensive to begin with, but the rewards are huge right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If nuclear is the answer does mean mean those who oppose climate pollution are actually happy with the chance of radioactive waste? Nuclear waste can be (and is) reprocessed, though. It’s by no means a perfect fuel supply, but reliance on combustibles isn’t the answer, we all know that. It can be and is reprocessed. It can and does leak. I'm just asking if nuclear is the answer, are we happy with the risks involved? It seems strange to me that we want rid of climate pollution only to champion nuclear which can cause climate pollution. If you (not YOU) believe climate change is real and believe the human race is culpable and believe it is possible to take action to mitigate the worst effects of climate change...then we need to do something! At present it appears there is no energy source that solves the problem without creating other real or potential problems... So, there is a need for a risk analysis to weigh up pros and cons. Nuclear is not without risks, it is expensive to begin with, but the rewards are huge right? " Is that risk worth it? It's just strange to me that the same people who oppose fossil, advocate nuclear. So far, I haven't had an answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison Remember the former chancellor Philip Hammond saying UK could not afford the one million pound cost of climate change. " Hammond said 2 trillion not a million. This is a problem with this country, very few people understand the vast difference between millions, billions and trillions. To count to a million it would take approximately 11 days, 13 hours and 46 mins. To count to a billion would take 31 years, 251 days To count to a trillion would take 31,963 years! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... Maybe we could harness the energy you put in to arguing against using renewable energy. That would probably be enough to power Birmingham." You know you are constantly complaining that people are being rude to you and not addressing the point you made? I think it is time you realised you too, are very much that person. Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... " Surely you’d accept that with more research and funding over recent decades, they’d be far better? That’s just basic logic, right? In which case, you must be able to accept that since we *are* going to be using renewables in the future, we could have put ourselves in a better place to do so by starting earlier and not putting it off? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... Maybe we could harness the energy you put in to arguing against using renewable energy. That would probably be enough to power Birmingham. You know you are constantly complaining that people are being rude to you and not addressing the point you made? " Not quite what I complain about. But anyway " I think it is time you realised you too, are very much that person. " Maybe sometimes that's true. This time was meant to be an inclusive joke. As it didn't come across that way. I apologise. " Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... " You can bring up anything you like. We do have some renewables, and the reason we're lagging behind is political, not because they are "not very good". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... Maybe we could harness the energy you put in to arguing against using renewable energy. That would probably be enough to power Birmingham. You know you are constantly complaining that people are being rude to you and not addressing the point you made? Not quite what I complain about. But anyway I think it is time you realised you too, are very much that person. Maybe sometimes that's true. This time was meant to be an inclusive joke. As it didn't come across that way. I apologise. Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... You can bring up anything you like. We do have some renewables, and the reason we're lagging behind is political, not because they are "not very good"." They really are not very good compared to what we have and the energy we use. You might like the idea of sitting in the dark twiddling your thumbs when there is no energy, but the vast majority of people will not. You bang the drum for renewables, they are not the answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... Surely you’d accept that with more research and funding over recent decades, they’d be far better? That’s just basic logic, right? In which case, you must be able to accept that since we *are* going to be using renewables in the future, we could have put ourselves in a better place to do so by starting earlier and not putting it off? " Flogging a dead horse is not going to make something substandard better. We need the brains looking at alternatives to what we have today, not wasting time trying to get squeeze a few more watts out renewables. Nuclear is the way forward. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... Maybe we could harness the energy you put in to arguing against using renewable energy. That would probably be enough to power Birmingham. You know you are constantly complaining that people are being rude to you and not addressing the point you made? Not quite what I complain about. But anyway I think it is time you realised you too, are very much that person. Maybe sometimes that's true. This time was meant to be an inclusive joke. As it didn't come across that way. I apologise. Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... You can bring up anything you like. We do have some renewables, and the reason we're lagging behind is political, not because they are "not very good". They really are not very good compared to what we have and the energy we use. You might like the idea of sitting in the dark twiddling your thumbs when there is no energy, but the vast majority of people will not. " Good news. Neither I nor anyone else is suggesting this. " You bang the drum for renewables, they are not the answer. " Renewables have to be the answer. Fossil fuel will run out, if the climate hasn't already caused civilisation to downfall. We can either: A. Continue as we are as energy prices go up and more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. B. Invest, and transition to renewables for sustainable energy that doesn't contribute to climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... Surely you’d accept that with more research and funding over recent decades, they’d be far better? That’s just basic logic, right? In which case, you must be able to accept that since we *are* going to be using renewables in the future, we could have put ourselves in a better place to do so by starting earlier and not putting it off? Flogging a dead horse is not going to make something substandard better. We need the brains looking at alternatives to what we have today, not wasting time trying to get squeeze a few more watts out renewables. Nuclear is the way forward." Nuclear is *part* of the way forwards. It’s by no means perfect, and the waste issue needs resolving, even if the waste can be partly recycled into further energy. Like I said, it’s a multi-faceted approach to move away from combustibles. Hitching the trailer to any one energy form isn’t going to work. And writing off renewables altogether is just idiocy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... Surely you’d accept that with more research and funding over recent decades, they’d be far better? That’s just basic logic, right? In which case, you must be able to accept that since we *are* going to be using renewables in the future, we could have put ourselves in a better place to do so by starting earlier and not putting it off? Flogging a dead horse is not going to make something substandard better. We need the brains looking at alternatives to what we have today, not wasting time trying to get squeeze a few more watts out renewables. Nuclear is the way forward. Nuclear is *part* of the way forwards. It’s by no means perfect, and the waste issue needs resolving, even if the waste can be partly recycled into further energy. Like I said, it’s a multi-faceted approach to move away from combustibles. Hitching the trailer to any one energy form isn’t going to work. And writing off renewables altogether is just idiocy. " 51.7% of our electricity is currently being generated by renewables. Hardly "not very good". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Going back to the only part of your point worth noting, why should I not bring up the lack of efficiencies and usable solutions of renewables, you do realise we haven't got them because they are not very good... Surely you’d accept that with more research and funding over recent decades, they’d be far better? That’s just basic logic, right? In which case, you must be able to accept that since we *are* going to be using renewables in the future, we could have put ourselves in a better place to do so by starting earlier and not putting it off? Flogging a dead horse is not going to make something substandard better. We need the brains looking at alternatives to what we have today, not wasting time trying to get squeeze a few more watts out renewables. Nuclear is the way forward. Nuclear is *part* of the way forwards. It’s by no means perfect, and the waste issue needs resolving, even if the waste can be partly recycled into further energy. Like I said, it’s a multi-faceted approach to move away from combustibles. Hitching the trailer to any one energy form isn’t going to work. And writing off renewables altogether is just idiocy. 51.7% of our electricity is currently being generated by renewables. Hardly "not very good"." It's as windy as its been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's as windy as it’s been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. " That’s why storage is the key element. Some nations have 95%+ renewables. Smaller nations, yes - but it can be done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's as windy as it’s been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. That’s why storage is the key element. Some nations have 95%+ renewables. Smaller nations, yes - but it can be done." Yes we need to sort storage. But, even at 51% that Johnny said, there is no excess for storage. To be truly renewable (which will never happen) we need every home in the UK to have solar and wind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about You don’t think that adequate research beginning 3-4 decades ago would by now have made advances to the point that renewables were far more viable than they are at present? In 1962 America had only lifted a man around 150miles from the surface of Earth. 7 years later, they landed two men on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away. That’s what research and funding does. It allows rapid advancement of technology. No I don't, renewables are not going to sustain a constant supply of energy, especially in relation to geography. If you think they could I would be happy to know how. Supply isn’t the problem, although that’s why you’d use a variety of sources, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear - energy storage is the problematic factor at present. Solar can't cut it here, tidal is far to problematic to maintain but we have plenty of wind... " Plenty of hot air in this forum  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's as windy as it’s been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. That’s why storage is the key element. Some nations have 95%+ renewables. Smaller nations, yes - but it can be done." The biggest storage battery in the world could power the UK grid for around 15 seconds... That's before replacing gas boilers, cars or anything else that requires large amounts of energy. Renewables sound great when dimwit Politicians like Caroline Lucas or Ed Milliband talk about them. Polticians like these take everything at face value. They do not know how to evaluate sources. They don't think. They don't know how anything actually works, and there's no sense of obligation to find out. They're not interested. They can't be arsed. The want the prestige and the salaries, but they don't want to do the work. They outsource their thinking entirely to green lobbyists and go along with whatever sounds good. We are ruled by thick, supine, venal, ignorant creatures, and if the public were fully aware what was happening and why, our politicians would not be able to leave the house without armed security guards. They are destroying Britain's economy, and in denying voters a meaningful choice, they are destroying Britain's democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's as windy as it’s been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. That’s why storage is the key element. Some nations have 95%+ renewables. Smaller nations, yes - but it can be done. The biggest storage battery in the world could power the UK grid for around 15 seconds... That's before replacing gas boilers, cars or anything else that requires large amounts of energy. Renewables sound great when dimwit Politicians like Caroline Lucas or Ed Milliband talk about them. Polticians like these take everything at face value. They do not know how to evaluate sources. They don't think. They don't know how anything actually works, and there's no sense of obligation to find out. They're not interested. They can't be arsed. The want the prestige and the salaries, but they don't want to do the work. They outsource their thinking entirely to green lobbyists and go along with whatever sounds good. We are ruled by thick, supine, venal, ignorant creatures, and if the public were fully aware what was happening and why, our politicians would not be able to leave the house without armed security guards. They are destroying Britain's economy, and in denying voters a meaningful choice, they are destroying Britain's democracy. " I’m not sure of Caroline Lucas or Ed Miliband have been in charge for the past 13 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's as windy as it’s been on these shores for quite a while. Wind is currently our biggest renewable source. When the wind drops, its fucking dreadful. That’s why storage is the key element. Some nations have 95%+ renewables. Smaller nations, yes - but it can be done. The biggest storage battery in the world could power the UK grid for around 15 seconds... That's before replacing gas boilers, cars or anything else that requires large amounts of energy. Renewables sound great when dimwit Politicians like Caroline Lucas or Ed Milliband talk about them. Polticians like these take everything at face value. They do not know how to evaluate sources. They don't think. They don't know how anything actually works, and there's no sense of obligation to find out. They're not interested. They can't be arsed. The want the prestige and the salaries, but they don't want to do the work. They outsource their thinking entirely to green lobbyists and go along with whatever sounds good. We are ruled by thick, supine, venal, ignorant creatures, and if the public were fully aware what was happening and why, our politicians would not be able to leave the house without armed security guards. They are destroying Britain's economy, and in denying voters a meaningful choice, they are destroying Britain's democracy. " What's your suggestion for combating climate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy " Who’s carrying on as normal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy " The rest of the world is tackling climate change, along with the uk. Too slowly. Where do you get this misinformation from? Can you elaborate what you mean by "we should adapt to climate change"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where do you get your misinformation from , let me guess, the BBC and the guardian? " Would you mind pointing out which nations are ‘carrying on as normal’ with regard to climate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy " The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where do you get your misinformation from , let me guess, the BBC and the guardian? " I have a degree in environmental science and climate. So you know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china." What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. " I'm saying just that. However I'm also pointing out that China are very good at promoting their achievements in this space and it drives people to say, even China are doing better. They play a crafty game do the CCP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. " And the impact of population growth The UN predicts 25% growth by 2080, another 2,000,000,000 people, the growth mainly from emerging countries aspiring to western living standards. 1.2bn people are forecast to be displaced by climate change. UN also says 50% increase in food required by 2050, an impact on climate change, especially but not limited to meat production How will this work for climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. I'm saying just that. However I'm also pointing out that China are very good at promoting their achievements in this space and it drives people to say, even China are doing better. They play a crafty game do the CCP." China are investing a lot, they have a long way to go. What do you suggest the UK does? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. And the impact of population growth The UN predicts 25% growth by 2080, another 2,000,000,000 people, the growth mainly from emerging countries aspiring to western living standards. 1.2bn people are forecast to be displaced by climate change. UN also says 50% increase in food required by 2050, an impact on climate change, especially but not limited to meat production How will this work for climate change. " I'm in favour of taking action to combat climate change. Just to be clear. Part of which includes stopping dragging our heels with the move to renewable energy sources. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We’ve known about the *neez* to take climate action for decades. It wasn’t new when when Al Gore was making a documentary about it. And yet here we are. Still. It’s absolutely shameful. " That's the power of money. €123 billion a year to be exact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment." Absolutely right. We should be doing much, much more, right now. We’ll pay for it, but that’s the way it has to be. If we’d done more 30-40 years ago we’d be reaping the benefits now, and it would have been cheaper in the long run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. I'm saying just that. However I'm also pointing out that China are very good at promoting their achievements in this space and it drives people to say, even China are doing better. They play a crafty game do the CCP. China are investing a lot, they have a long way to go. What do you suggest the UK does?" How do you know China are investing in what they say they are? Are you taking the word of the CCP, certain media outlets or do you have hands on experience/ evidence that it is happening? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Milliband brought in the 2008 climate change act and in 2019 the tories and Labour doubled down on the nonsense. We should adapt to climate change as we always have. Spending trillions and bankrupting ourselves when the rest of the world carries on as normal is lunacy The efforts put into renewables and climate change is nothing more than a plaster on a flesh wound at the moment. Fossil fuels will remain in service until they workout the next steps, until then people need pacifying, it isn't working on those who follow china. What do you suggest we do, if you're saying we're not doing enough when you say "plaster on a flesh wound" then I agree with you. I'm saying just that. However I'm also pointing out that China are very good at promoting their achievements in this space and it drives people to say, even China are doing better. They play a crafty game do the CCP. China are investing a lot, they have a long way to go. What do you suggest the UK does? How do you know China are investing in what they say they are? Are you taking the word of the CCP, certain media outlets or do you have hands on experience/ evidence that it is happening? " Do you have evidence that they’re not? They’re targeting 33% of power from renewables by 2025 (was around 28% in 2020). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also what could we have done 30-40 years ago that would had made renewable in anyway useful? " You understand how research and development works, I presume? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" L Meanwhile it builds ever more coal fired power stations and opens more mines. As does India. Russia. Most of Africa and South America. " Uruguay’s energy is around 95% from renewables. Costa Rica is higher at 99% Brazil is 83%, Panama is 71% Do you research anything? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Also what could we have done 30-40 years ago that would had made renewable in anyway useful? " Unless I’ve missed your point, I’d say everything Photo voltaic on every new building (with suitable orientation) Wave and wind farms 30-40 years of lower energy bills Energy security. Investing in Agri Voltaic would have protected crops from drought and food insecurity New green jobs Behind the curve on action, the technology was there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" L Meanwhile it builds ever more coal fired power stations and opens more mines. As does India. Russia. Most of Africa and South America. Uruguay’s energy is around 95% from renewables. Costa Rica is higher at 99% Brazil is 83%, Panama is 71% Do you research anything?" Brazil relies heavily on hydroelectric....and in 2001 had massive problems and power outages because of a drought. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" L Meanwhile it builds ever more coal fired power stations and opens more mines. As does India. Russia. Most of Africa and South America. Uruguay’s energy is around 95% from renewables. Costa Rica is higher at 99% Brazil is 83%, Panama is 71% Do you research anything? Brazil relies heavily on hydroelectric....and in 2001 had massive problems and power outages because of a drought." Which is why renewables are never going to be a single method concept. Hydro, solar, wind, tidal all play a role, as should nuclear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Try net zero. Will leave the UK economy trillions worse off. Brexit will look like a rounding error in comparison A proper approach to the green economy could have made us a world leader in green-tech. But as usual, we’ve decided to half-arse it. I hear this a lot form people who use crystal balls to make a point. What green tech did your crystal ball tell you we would have had to power the whole country? As has been pointed out repeatedly, a combination of renewables (plus nuclear) would have been the best route to take. And it should have started decades ago. Nuclear yes, however renewables are not up to the job today, so would not have been up the job in the time you are reminiscing about " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much solar energy hitting the earth’s surface that even a single year of sunshine exceeds all known energy reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and uranium put together. The energy from the sun dwarfs every other kind of renewable energy, in large part because wind, hydro, biomass, and waves are the direct result of the sun’s light and heat. The energy from one hour of sunshine exceeds the energy produced from all other sources over a whole year. https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ " We are at least another century away from realisation of solar tech that will be truly beneficial / meaningful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much solar energy hitting the earth’s surface that even a single year of sunshine exceeds all known energy reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and uranium put together. The energy from the sun dwarfs every other kind of renewable energy, in large part because wind, hydro, biomass, and waves are the direct result of the sun’s light and heat. The energy from one hour of sunshine exceeds the energy produced from all other sources over a whole year. https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ We are at least another century away from realisation of solar tech that will be truly beneficial / meaningful" Given that photovoltaic usage has grown exponentially since the 90’s and now doubles approximately every 2-3 years, I’d suggest you’re underestimating that massively. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Al Gore's documentary also said the ice caps would have melted by now. Oddly enough they are as big as ever. " Since 1992, Greenland and Antarctica have both lost ice overall, each one losing more than 100 billion metric tons of ice per year on average. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Al Gore's documentary also said the ice caps would have melted by now. Oddly enough they are as big as ever. Since 1992, Greenland and Antarctica have both lost ice overall, each one losing more than 100 billion metric tons of ice per year on average." In the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which illustrated his global warming activism, Gore said studies suggested “in the next 50 to 70 years in summertime [the Arctic ice cap] will be completely gone” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now?" Because governments spend most of their energy worrying about the next election to have proper long term plans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now?" How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me." For WWII the govt issued “War Bonds” to finance the war effort. So how about “Green Initiative Bonds” that are payable over 200 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me." First see my previous response as my point was on how we finance green initiatives without the full burden falling on current generation(s). Your reply then conflated other points which were not my point. However, let me address one of them... "we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me. First see my previous response as my point was on how we finance green initiatives without the full burden falling on current generation(s). Your reply then conflated other points which were not my point. However, let me address one of them... we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! " If you look at co2 emissions per head of population, we're not far behind China. So this is a total myth that we should do nothing "because look at China". China 7.2 tons per year per person UK 5.6 tons per year per person | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! " I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. " Correction.... Found a more upto date table which puts China at 38th. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. " Hmmm ok the West didn’t “force” but supply and demand (capitalism) did drive the decision by Western companies to use Chinese manufacturers for products. If those Western companies had so “no we will maintain our manufacturing base locally thanks) then China would not have enjoyed exponential growth and the associated industrialisation. So it is an “unvirtuous circle” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me. First see my previous response as my point was on how we finance green initiatives without the full burden falling on current generation(s). Your reply then conflated other points which were not my point. However, let me address one of them... we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! " Yes I agree totally with that point. We shouldn’t turn China into a victim here though they know perfectly well what they are doing. The West on the one hand likes to hand-wring about Chinese human rights but is totally reliant on Chinese production. Any efforts that the West makes towards Net Zero targets is going to be totally dependent upon importing products cheaply from China produced on the back of cheap labour and cheap fossil fuels while the West destroys its own industrial base with expensive renewables. Electric vehicles, solar panels, etc etc all dominated by Chinese manufacturers. Not to mention of course the horrendous working conditions where the minerals for these products are extracted. But yes look at my nice shiny Chinese made Tesla. So chic and comes with a massive dose of virtue signalling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. Hmmm ok the West didn’t “force” but supply and demand (capitalism) did drive the decision by Western companies to use Chinese manufacturers for products. If those Western companies had so “no we will maintain our manufacturing base locally thanks) then China would not have enjoyed exponential growth and the associated industrialisation. So it is an “unvirtuous circle”" Agreed that capitalism took manufacturing to China. However, as stated, China were and still are happy for it. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep it 'at home' but blaming the west is just the easy solution. Fuck, who am I trying to kid, the west is always to blame. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. Hmmm ok the West didn’t “force” but supply and demand (capitalism) did drive the decision by Western companies to use Chinese manufacturers for products. If those Western companies had so “no we will maintain our manufacturing base locally thanks) then China would not have enjoyed exponential growth and the associated industrialisation. So it is an “unvirtuous circle” Agreed that capitalism took manufacturing to China. However, as stated, China were and still are happy for it. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep it 'at home' but blaming the west is just the easy solution. Fuck, who am I trying to kid, the west is always to blame." My point was not blaming the West but pointing out that it is disingenuous to point the finger at other polluters without framing and context. We are all to blame and we all share a collective responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! I see this 'blame the west for offloading' argument quite often, its valid but only valid to a small extent. The west haven't forced China to take on any manufacturing, China have made a choice, a choice they're happy with. The UK isn't even in the top 10 per capita. And China are sitting in 7th. Hmmm ok the West didn’t “force” but supply and demand (capitalism) did drive the decision by Western companies to use Chinese manufacturers for products. If those Western companies had so “no we will maintain our manufacturing base locally thanks) then China would not have enjoyed exponential growth and the associated industrialisation. So it is an “unvirtuous circle” Agreed that capitalism took manufacturing to China. However, as stated, China were and still are happy for it. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep it 'at home' but blaming the west is just the easy solution. Fuck, who am I trying to kid, the west is always to blame. My point was not blaming the West but pointing out that it is disingenuous to point the finger at other polluters without framing and context. We are all to blame and we all share a collective responsibility. " Fair... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me. First see my previous response as my point was on how we finance green initiatives without the full burden falling on current generation(s). Your reply then conflated other points which were not my point. However, let me address one of them... we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! If you look at co2 emissions per head of population, we're not far behind China. So this is a total myth that we should do nothing "because look at China". China 7.2 tons per year per person UK 5.6 tons per year per person " Yes that puts us behind polluting giants like the Cook Islands and Mongolia. Whichever way you cut it, the UK is an irrelevance. Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We often see the argument against green energy initiatives being that we can’t afford it and we are bankrupting the country or putting too much of the cost on the current generation. I have some sympathy for that argument but it leaves me wondering why the burden should fall so heavily on the current generation? Hear me out. 1. This is an international/global emergency (if we believe the science). 2. Inaction or insufficient action now will mostly impact future generations more than current. 3. So why not finance this through a multi-generational approach? Cover the cost and debt over several generations to lower the burden on a “single” generation? It has been done before. The cost of the abolition of sl@very took 200 years. The cost/debt for WWII only recently got paid off. Current taxpayers have been paying the debt incurred by earlier generations (up to 8 generations ish). So why not finance green/climate change initiatives in the same way? Surely this would be one long term debt future generations would welcome as they will be benefitting from decisions made now? How is that different from any other government finance? Is the covid/lockdown bill going to be paid back in your lifetime? The chances of any Western state ever bringing their debt down to zero, given their dependence on borrowing to fund welfare, pensions, disability, government employment programmes etc is nil. On the one hand we are told that Net Zero is a great opportunity and will create loads of jobs, on the other nobody appears willing to fund it apart from governments. It also doesn’t matter what the UK does about climate change in global terms, so any government expenditure that can’t guarantee a greater financial return is just being wasted. If the intention is to actually impact the climate, then we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK. And to be honest these people can’t even fix potholes so why anyone thinks that they can impact global temperatures by tenths of a degree 200 years from now is beyond me. First see my previous response as my point was on how we finance green initiatives without the full burden falling on current generation(s). Your reply then conflated other points which were not my point. However, let me address one of them... we need to look to the actual “polluters” which isn’t the UK I agree that the UK is way down the list BUT...why are, for example, China the major polluter? What is it they do that has turned them into a major polluter? One key reason is that the western economies have offloaded production and manufacturing of a significant proportion of everything to China. Western economies continue to be the main consumers but we shifted production (and therefore pollution) to China. So it is disingenuous to ignore that inconvenient truth! If you look at co2 emissions per head of population, we're not far behind China. So this is a total myth that we should do nothing "because look at China". China 7.2 tons per year per person UK 5.6 tons per year per person Yes that puts us behind polluting giants like the Cook Islands and Mongolia. Whichever way you cut it, the UK is an irrelevance. Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful." I've just shown you that the UK isn't an irrelevance. It shows you that we all need to take action. Blaming china is pointless and nonsensical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are all to blame and we all share a collective responsibility. " In a nutshell, this is it. We share this planet, and we all need to protect it. With collective action we still can. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful." Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly." I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live." Fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live." Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly." Have you thought of being a primary school teacher? You’d probably be a natural. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences." He doesn't have either of those things | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences." Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? " Why? I haven’t claimed to be doing anything of the sort. I don’t make absurd claims that I can’t justify. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? " Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. Have you thought of being a primary school teacher? You’d probably be a natural." Doesn’t pay nearly enough. I’m loaded | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do." Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis”. I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. " You don't do that though, just reread your posts. All you do is attempt to belittle people. " You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. " Wrong. I made no claims. " I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. " By attempting to belittle and berate me. " This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. " No one wants this. So you have nothing to worry about. " You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis” I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. " The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer. You appear to argue that we should take any action on climate change. Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to explain why. See if it's possible to do without attempting to belittle anyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. You don't do that though, just reread your posts. All you do is attempt to belittle people. You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. Wrong. I made no claims. I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. By attempting to belittle and berate me. This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. No one wants this. So you have nothing to worry about. You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis” I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer. You appear to argue that we should take any action on climate change. Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to explain why. See if it's possible to do without attempting to belittle anyone. " *Shouldn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. You don't do that though, just reread your posts. All you do is attempt to belittle people. You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. Wrong. I made no claims. I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. By attempting to belittle and berate me. This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. No one wants this. So you have nothing to worry about. You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis” I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer. You appear to argue that we should take any action on climate change. Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to explain why. See if it's possible to do without attempting to belittle anyone. *Shouldn't." Glad you corrected that as my inner primary school teacher may have needed to step in | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer It appears Johnny isn't ripping out his gas boiler and curtailing foreign holidays just yet." What has this got to do with anything? Aren't you usually arguing that we shouldn't do anything about climate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much solar energy hitting the earth’s surface that even a single year of sunshine exceeds all known energy reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and uranium put together. The energy from the sun dwarfs every other kind of renewable energy, in large part because wind, hydro, biomass, and waves are the direct result of the sun’s light and heat. The energy from one hour of sunshine exceeds the energy produced from all other sources over a whole year. https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ We are at least another century away from realisation of solar tech that will be truly beneficial / meaningful Given that photovoltaic usage has grown exponentially since the 90’s and now doubles approximately every 2-3 years, I’d suggest you’re underestimating that massively. " It’s not my estimation it is the estimation of the best brains in physics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. You don't do that though, just reread your posts. All you do is attempt to belittle people. You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. Wrong. I made no claims. I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. By attempting to belittle and berate me. This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. No one wants this. So you have nothing to worry about. You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis” I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer. You appear to argue that we should take any action on climate change. Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to explain why. See if it's possible to do without attempting to belittle anyone. " I have simply asked you to specify what steps that you personally have taken to tackle the climate emergency. So far we seem to have established that you have done nothing. No money spent, no sacrifices made, no action taken. I would say I am shocked at this, but it is pretty par for the course for climate alarmists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you hate the UK of course in which case I’m sure everything is awful. Rog why such emotive language? You can be critical of things yet still love them! You know that right? Posts like that just undermine your arguments and come across as rather silly. I would argue that people who are critical of things like the government, love their country more than those who spend their time trying to belittle anyone who strives to make it a better place to live. Are you striving to make the UK a better place to live? What have you done in pursuit of this lofty goal? How is the EV and heat pump going? I’d be interested to hear your experiences. Rog at least explain what it is that YOU are doing to make the UK a better place to live? Berating people on a swingers forum. What more can he do. Disagreeing with people now equates to “berating” them. I always wondered what “snowflake” meant. You don't do that though, just reread your posts. All you do is attempt to belittle people. You simply made high claims about your motivations and actions. Wrong. I made no claims. I queried what steps you have taken in justification of your claims. By attempting to belittle and berate me. This is a fair and important question that those who wish to make us all poorer and more miserable in the name of climate justice must answer. No one wants this. So you have nothing to worry about. You regularly “berate” people on this forum about the lack of action on the “climate crisis” I think it’s fair to assume that you must therefore be taking drastic and urgent action yourself given the imminent end of humanity. Like buying an EV, installing a heat pump, solar panels, travelling to Beijing to protest their use of coal, ceasing to use plastic and mobile phones etc. I am simply looking to you for inspirational leadership. It’s a fair assumption to make I think given the extent of your “striving”. The rest of this makes no sense. So I can't answer. You appear to argue that we should take any action on climate change. Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to explain why. See if it's possible to do without attempting to belittle anyone. I have simply asked you to specify what steps that you personally have taken to tackle the climate emergency. So far we seem to have established that you have done nothing. No money spent, no sacrifices made, no action taken. I would say I am shocked at this, but it is pretty par for the course for climate alarmists. " Not able to then? I'll leave you to crack on with your climate confusion and attempted belittling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much solar energy hitting the earth’s surface that even a single year of sunshine exceeds all known energy reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and uranium put together. The energy from the sun dwarfs every other kind of renewable energy, in large part because wind, hydro, biomass, and waves are the direct result of the sun’s light and heat. The energy from one hour of sunshine exceeds the energy produced from all other sources over a whole year. https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ We are at least another century away from realisation of solar tech that will be truly beneficial / meaningful Given that photovoltaic usage has grown exponentially since the 90’s and now doubles approximately every 2-3 years, I’d suggest you’re underestimating that massively. It’s not my estimation it is the estimation of the best brains in physics. " Kindly link to the research? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is so much solar energy hitting the earth’s surface that even a single year of sunshine exceeds all known energy reserves of oil, coal, natural gas and uranium put together. The energy from the sun dwarfs every other kind of renewable energy, in large part because wind, hydro, biomass, and waves are the direct result of the sun’s light and heat. The energy from one hour of sunshine exceeds the energy produced from all other sources over a whole year. https://www.freeingenergy.com/the-earth-gets-more-solar-energy-in-one-hour-than-the-entire-world-uses-in-a-year/ We are at least another century away from realisation of solar tech that will be truly beneficial / meaningful Given that photovoltaic usage has grown exponentially since the 90’s and now doubles approximately every 2-3 years, I’d suggest you’re underestimating that massively. It’s not my estimation it is the estimation of the best brains in physics. Kindly link to the research? " look at this Kardashev scale, use this name Michio Kaku to understand his findings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" “there is now a clear consensus allowing [economists] to say with certainty that the Brexit hit to UK prosperity was “undeniable”...Brexit has significantly worsened the country’s economic performance." https://www.ft.com/content/e39d0315-fd5b-47c8-8560-04bb786f2c13 " And especially shocking coming from the FT in 2022. A newspaper renowned for its long time euroscepticism. Thank goodness ordinary working people can rely on the daily newspaper of the City and Big Corporate Britain to concern itself with their interests. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government." “It was a great idea, we just didn’t implement it properly” Mayhap we should have had a well constructed and costed plan before asking the public to vote on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government." Yeah that’s the reason. Nobody could do it right  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government." In fairness, this government have done their best, the achieved most of the aims. They crashed the value of the £, so some of them could make a lot of money, the ultra rich can continue to avoid paying taxes. They're in the process of ditching EU regulations that protect workers, food safety standards, and environmental protections. I would rarely defend this government, but in the case of Brexit, they saw the point of it, and made the most of it for themselves and their donors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government. “It was a great idea, we just didn’t implement it properly” Mayhap we should have had a well constructed and costed plan before asking the public to vote on it. " In fairness, the public were given all the information about the kind of impacts leaving the EU had. They just chose to believe in unicorns instead. Many of them still do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government. “It was a great idea, we just didn’t implement it properly” Mayhap we should have had a well constructed and costed plan before asking the public to vote on it. In fairness, the public were given all the information about the kind of impacts leaving the EU had. They just chose to believe in unicorns instead. Many of them still do. " How accurate are these experts you choose to believe | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The long term success of Brexit, whatever that looks like, is contingent on having a government that sees the point of Brexit and has half a clue what to do with it. Our system isn't capable of producing such a government. “It was a great idea, we just didn’t implement it properly” Mayhap we should have had a well constructed and costed plan before asking the public to vote on it. In fairness, the public were given all the information about the kind of impacts leaving the EU had. They just chose to believe in unicorns instead. Many of them still do. How accurate are these experts you choose to believe " Can you clarify what you mean? Prior to the referendum, the impacts of leaving the EU were layed out. Lots of people ignored them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
