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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. " You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. " Nope. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope." Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV." This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry. "Not at all it’s a practical question. Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV. Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population. I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse. But you believe in this stuff, or so you say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question."No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact. " Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV. " The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason". " Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population. " Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action " I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse. But you believe in this stuff, or so you say. " I have never said "I believe in this stuff". As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change."So what have you done personally to combat climate change? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?"Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change? If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help."To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously. I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything. Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything. The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! " What did he say that on ? Have you got a link for it ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! It's on YouTube you can't post links here??? What did he say that on ? Have you got a link for it ?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! It's on YouTube you can't post links here??? What did he say that on ? Have you got a link for it ?" YouTube is allowed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket "25% increase in global population/2bn more people by 2080. (United Nations) The majority borne into emerging counties aspiring to western living standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! It's on YouTube you can't post links here??? What did he say that on ? Have you got a link for it ? YouTube is allowed" Was shown a school exercise book by a parent the project entitled ‘ what it’s like to grow up as a Muslim in Britain’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On vehicle emissions he’s right too. It’s a total con unless electric vehicles can roll without tyres https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions" ban SUVs too. Unless they can roll without tyres.
And cheap tyres.
(It is an interesting discussion about what needs to be looked at, how we compare, and what gets legislated for) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously."Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you. No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously. " I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything. " It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it. " Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything. " No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry. " The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother." It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket "It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in."So basically you haven’t done anything. No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is. Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! It's on YouTube you can't post links here??? What did he say that on ? Have you got a link for it ? YouTube is allowed Was shown a school exercise book by a parent the project entitled ‘ what it’s like to grow up as a Muslim in Britain’. " Right? Is there a link to said interview anywhere? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in."The majority of us seem to be interested in climate change, I read 76% of uk polled are concerned about it. But I don’t see us giving up meat (73% uk carnivore diet) or 34 million cars on uk roads/ 4.5% of them electric, or investing in heat pumps (0.19% uk households have one/ 81% of Japan) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000bqsh https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/44871-how-many-britons-will-attempt-vegan-diet-and-lifes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
So basically you haven’t done anything."Incorrect, I've explained in detail why I declined to ask your irrelevant question. " No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is. " Why is this my responsibility, what's this got to do with your confusion about climate change? " Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes." Good. No one is doing this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
The majority of us seem to be interested in climate change, I read 76% of uk polled are concerned about it.
But I don’t see us giving up meat (73% uk carnivore diet) or 34 million cars on uk roads/ 4.5% of them electric, or investing in heat pumps (0.19% uk households have one/ 81% of Japan)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000bqsh
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/44871-how-many-britons-will-attempt-vegan-diet-and-lifes"
These things aren't essential to combat climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"On vehicle emissions he’s right too. It’s a total con unless electric vehicles can roll without tyres https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissionsban SUVs too. Unless they can roll without tyres.
And cheap tyres.
(It is an interesting discussion about what needs to be looked at, how we compare, and what gets legislated for) "https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/tyre-emissions-from-the-latest-electric-vehicles Here's the latest from the same group which suggests we need to factor in lots more things than just weight. Tho I will admit I'm not 100pc sure their conclusion even when looking at their final slide which says "current bev tend to be higher wearing but less toxic" (to what??) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
So basically you haven’t done anything.
Incorrect, I've explained in detail why I declined to ask your irrelevant question.
No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is.
Why is this my responsibility, what's this got to do with your confusion about climate change?
Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes.
Good. No one is doing this. "Like all Green fanatics you have no practical solutions at all. You are actually your own worst enemies, which is why you are being dumped by the electorate. Labour has to appease the Greens with its barmy Net Zero policies to stop a trickle of votes to the Green Party, but sooner or later Labour will also start rolling back on its Net Zero policies. It’s actually a tragedy for environmental policy that it has been hijacked by extremists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
So basically you haven’t done anything.
Incorrect, I've explained in detail why I declined to ask your irrelevant question.
No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is.
Why is this my responsibility, what's this got to do with your confusion about climate change?
Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes.
Good. No one is doing this.
Like all Green fanatics you have no practical solutions at all. You are actually your own worst enemies, which is why you are being dumped by the electorate.
Labour has to appease the Greens with its barmy Net Zero policies to stop a trickle of votes to the Green Party, but sooner or later Labour will also start rolling back on its Net Zero policies.
It’s actually a tragedy for environmental policy that it has been hijacked by extremists."Imagine thinking that people who want to tackle climate change are "extremists". Fair play to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE " EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
So basically you haven’t done anything.
Incorrect, I've explained in detail why I declined to ask your irrelevant question.
No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is.
Why is this my responsibility, what's this got to do with your confusion about climate change?
Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes.
Good. No one is doing this.
Like all Green fanatics you have no practical solutions at all. You are actually your own worst enemies, which is why you are being dumped by the electorate.
Labour has to appease the Greens with its barmy Net Zero policies to stop a trickle of votes to the Green Party, but sooner or later Labour will also start rolling back on its Net Zero policies.
It’s actually a tragedy for environmental policy that it has been hijacked by extremists.
Imagine thinking that people who want to tackle climate change are "extremists".
Fair play to you.
"You “want to tackle climate change” yet have done nothing about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
So basically you haven’t done anything.
Incorrect, I've explained in detail why I declined to ask your irrelevant question.
No wonder the Greens have crashed and burned across the EU. I’m guessing you haven’t bothered trying to understand why that is.
Why is this my responsibility, what's this got to do with your confusion about climate change?
Constantly repeating some buzzwords randomly joined together doesn’t actually equate to an achievable policy that will have any successful outcomes.
Good. No one is doing this.
Like all Green fanatics you have no practical solutions at all. You are actually your own worst enemies, which is why you are being dumped by the electorate.
Labour has to appease the Greens with its barmy Net Zero policies to stop a trickle of votes to the Green Party, but sooner or later Labour will also start rolling back on its Net Zero policies.
It’s actually a tragedy for environmental policy that it has been hijacked by extremists.
Imagine thinking that people who want to tackle climate change are "extremists".
Fair play to you.
You “want to tackle climate change” yet have done nothing about it.
"No. Incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range." And are those electric cars charged using renewable electricity, 50.9 per cent( Quarter 1 2024) of uk electricity is from renewables | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just watched a TV interview he done on Sunday and he said schools should not be integrated and there should be schools just for white British people. The interviewers jaw dropped! " How white though? I mean does olive skin people with Italian ancestry but born here count? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket "Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?"Won’t that just make Net Zero even more impossible than it already is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?"That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe. Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
Won’t that just make Net Zero even more impossible than it already is?"Dunno I do not claim to understand it all but I constantly see people arguing against the UK (or West) doing anything because…India and China…when in fact the industrialisation of those two countries has been driven by the actions of the West. So I like to call out the hypocrisy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range." be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
Won’t that just make Net Zero even more impossible than it already is?
Dunno I do not claim to understand it all but I constantly see people arguing against the UK (or West) doing anything because…India and China…when in fact the industrialisation of those two countries has been driven by the actions of the West. So I like to call out the hypocrisy!"Exactly this, and Farage calling it out for what it is The previous chancellor Phillip Hammond said the UK could not afford the £1trn cost of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population."CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) World Bank China 7.8 UK 4.6 Our World in Data China 8.0 UK 5.2 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. " If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population.
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
World Bank
China 7.8
UK 4.6
Our World in Data
China 8.0
UK 5.2
"How does that change if we bring all manufacturing back to the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population.
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
World Bank
China 7.8
UK 4.6
Our World in Data
China 8.0
UK 5.2
How does that change if we bring all manufacturing back to the UK?"Will that happen soon? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population.
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
World Bank
China 7.8
UK 4.6
Our World in Data
China 8.0
UK 5.2
"Chinese manufacturing 27.7% of $18trn GDP Uk manufacturing 8.65% of £3.1trn GDP https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CHN/china/manufacturing-output | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home." Of cause all that said is that's only a consideration for somone doing regular long distance (200+ mile) trips. An ev will be cheaper for 90 of normal journeys for the majority of people. I'm not interested in them and will keep my current car as long as possible. Maybe get something ev around 2030 if I really have to (and if there is something small enough and fun enough) and keep the 911 as a weekend garage queen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe.
Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high. "1,142 coal power stations would elevate that carbon footprint extortionately. They obviously haven’t got much of a green agenda! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population.
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
World Bank
China 7.8
UK 4.6
Our World in Data
China 8.0
UK 5.2
How does that change if we bring all manufacturing back to the UK?
Will that happen soon?"Of course not but pointing the finger at China while busily consuming all the manufactured products they churn out is hypocritical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe.
Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high.
1,142 coal power stations would elevate that carbon footprint extortionately. They obviously haven’t got much of a green agenda!"You might actually want to research that a bit. China are doing green projects on a scale that makes the West look pitiful. However, they appear to be being pragmatic in that, for now, they understand that they can only fund that by continuing to be the World’s factory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
It will put more cash in our pockets long term and we produce nearly as much CO2 as china per head of population.
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)
World Bank
China 7.8
UK 4.6
Our World in Data
China 8.0
UK 5.2
How does that change if we bring all manufacturing back to the UK?
Will that happen soon?
Of course not but pointing the finger at China while busily consuming all the manufactured products they churn out is hypocritical."And importing 40% of food and 37% of our energy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-food-security-index-2024/uk-food-security-index-2024#:~:text=Production%20was%20at%2060%25%20for,mitigates%20national%20risks%20to%20supply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe.
Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high.
1,142 coal power stations would elevate that carbon footprint extortionately. They obviously haven’t got much of a green agenda!
You might actually want to research that a bit. China are doing green projects on a scale that makes the West look pitiful. However, they appear to be being pragmatic in that, for now, they understand that they can only fund that by continuing to be the World’s factory."Sorry but I’m certain that they can’t be that serious about it with all those coal powered power stations. 1,142, that is a hell of a lot of fossil fuel being burned. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe.
Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high.
1,142 coal power stations would elevate that carbon footprint extortionately. They obviously haven’t got much of a green agenda!
You might actually want to research that a bit. China are doing green projects on a scale that makes the West look pitiful. However, they appear to be being pragmatic in that, for now, they understand that they can only fund that by continuing to be the World’s factory.
Sorry but I’m certain that they can’t be that serious about it with all those coal powered power stations. 1,142, that is a hell of a lot of fossil fuel being burned."How they produce their energy does not stop uk importing £90bn Chinese goods annually https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6672b732f92bc4be25da7df7/china-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2024-06-20.pdf | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
That’s very valid. All the finger pointing at China who manufacture 28% of everything on the globe.
Unsurprisingly their carbon footprint is high.
1,142 coal power stations would elevate that carbon footprint extortionately. They obviously haven’t got much of a green agenda!
You might actually want to research that a bit. China are doing green projects on a scale that makes the West look pitiful. However, they appear to be being pragmatic in that, for now, they understand that they can only fund that by continuing to be the World’s factory.
Sorry but I’m certain that they can’t be that serious about it with all those coal powered power stations. 1,142, that is a hell of a lot of fossil fuel being burned."1. That number of power stations needs to be seen in context of their population AND manufacturing output mostly consumed by the West. 2. As I said they are perhaps being pragmatic and taking a graduated step to balance the future with current needs. 3. Seriously go research it. When I did I was astounded and in awe of what they are doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?
Won’t that just make Net Zero even more impossible than it already is?
Dunno I do not claim to understand it all but I constantly see people arguing against the UK (or West) doing anything because…India and China…when in fact the industrialisation of those two countries has been driven by the actions of the West. So I like to call out the hypocrisy!
Exactly this, and Farage calling it out for what it is
The previous chancellor Phillip Hammond said the UK could not afford the £1trn cost of climate change. "If only we'd done something about it when we had the chance. Still the longer we leave it, the greater the cost, and the greater the profits for the fossil fuels industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range." That makes more sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home." I have seen a few reports comparing EV to ICE and as soon as they have to charge anywhere apart from home (which takes forever) the ICE is usually cheaper. Given that many can't charge at home it becomes a bit of a hurdle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home. I have seen a few reports comparing EV to ICE and as soon as they have to charge anywhere apart from home (which takes forever) the ICE is usually cheaper. Given that many can't charge at home it becomes a bit of a hurdle" If only 50% of electricity in uk is from renewables I’m struggling to see the environmental benefit. On a personal basis a £2.5K diesel golf will last another 10 years as opposed to £50k for an equivalent EV version, which for 7-8k annual miles is not worthwhile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the massive losses that EV’s suffer in resale value no sane person is going to buy one privately. They are okay if you get one through a company car scheme and get some tax benefits and the losses in value aren’t your problem. And provided your employer doesn’t mind you spending hours out of your day recharging it. So much for the UK’s productivity problem. Oh and provided you’ve got a second ICE car for times when you actually want to go anywhere beyond the commute to the office on someone else’s time." I agree with your first points. I have no idea who you are think of when talking about this worker who recharges on work time and wouldn't ever do it in their own time ... I can only think of someone who travels a lot for work and never has to email. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home. I have seen a few reports comparing EV to ICE and as soon as they have to charge anywhere apart from home (which takes forever) the ICE is usually cheaper. Given that many can't charge at home it becomes a bit of a hurdle" Yes… and no! When the ICE first appeared do you think people were saying…. Can’t have one of those at home, need to keep a tank of petrol at all times! The answer will be what is now… petrol stations will become charging stations, the charging infrastructure will get better and the cars will basically get you from a 10-80% charge quicker Things that will need looking at…. Disparity in charging prices!… for example there can be a huge difference between what Tesla have managed to do with their supercharger network! And what competitors charge The other thing at the moment is the price disparity between EV and ICE , that will also come down with the greater variety in the next 18-24 months | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE EV's are at their worst on a long journey at motorway speeds. Faster speed is a higher drain on the battery, and because you are at a constant speed yoy don't get the benefit of regenerative breaking etc. The one time you need their range is the one time they can't supply that range.be interested to see how that translates to cost tho as that's the claim. Especially as other cars are also inefficient at speed. If you have to change anywhere but home then it will cost more. Ice cars are almost the inverse of evs in that they are incredibly inefficient in urban stop start, but much more efficient in the cruise. A test was done in couple of 4 series bmw's same distance driven on motorway one petrol one ev. Both started fully fueled then charged / filled at the same services. The ice was cheaper. But that's because those ev chargers are stupidly expensive compared to home. I have seen a few reports comparing EV to ICE and as soon as they have to charge anywhere apart from home (which takes forever) the ICE is usually cheaper. Given that many can't charge at home it becomes a bit of a hurdle Yes… and no! When the ICE first appeared do you think people were saying…. Can’t have one of those at home, need to keep a tank of petrol at all times! The answer will be what is now… petrol stations will become charging stations, the charging infrastructure will get better and the cars will basically get you from a 10-80% charge quicker Things that will need looking at…. Disparity in charging prices!… for example there can be a huge difference between what Tesla have managed to do with their supercharger network! And what competitors charge The other thing at the moment is the price disparity between EV and ICE , that will also come down with the greater variety in the next 18-24 months " I was saying what reports I had seen of actual comparison tests and when public charging was needed the ICE proved more efficient. I agree the disparity of public charging to home charging needs addressing as that was what the reports highlight. They did not even take into account the buying of the vehicles. In the future petrol stations may well turn into charging stations but I was talking about the here and now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the massive losses that EV’s suffer in resale value no sane person is going to buy one privately. They are okay if you get one through a company car scheme and get some tax benefits and the losses in value aren’t your problem. And provided your employer doesn’t mind you spending hours out of your day recharging it. So much for the UK’s productivity problem. Oh and provided you’ve got a second ICE car for times when you actually want to go anywhere beyond the commute to the office on someone else’s time.I agree with your first points. I have no idea who you are think of when talking about this worker who recharges on work time and wouldn't ever do it in their own time ... I can only think of someone who travels a lot for work and never has to email. " Of course people will generally charge on their own time when they can. But lots of workers are on the road either on single lengthy return journeys or away for multiple days at a time. Relying on a single charge at home isn’t an option, and nor is guaranteeing availability of suitable charging when you want it. With an ICE none of this is an issue, and even if you are running low it’s a ten minute stop. No biggie out of your working day. Added to that is the total unreliability of manufacturers’ charging figures which are a complete con. Under any other circumstance there would be a big regulatory issue but what we have currently is legalised lying in mileage ranges because governments are happy for people to be misled because it advances their agenda. But people aren’t stupid. We all know that the range figures are rubbish and we should cut them by 33% to get the real world figure. 200 miles is next to useless. I can’t recall where I was reading the other day, it may have been an industry source saying that EV drivers are increasingly switching back to ICE cars when they change because their experience with EV’s has been so poor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Given the massive losses that EV’s suffer in resale value no sane person is going to buy one privately. They are okay if you get one through a company car scheme and get some tax benefits and the losses in value aren’t your problem. And provided your employer doesn’t mind you spending hours out of your day recharging it. So much for the UK’s productivity problem. Oh and provided you’ve got a second ICE car for times when you actually want to go anywhere beyond the commute to the office on someone else’s time.I agree with your first points. I have no idea who you are think of when talking about this worker who recharges on work time and wouldn't ever do it in their own time ... I can only think of someone who travels a lot for work and never has to email. Of course people will generally charge on their own time when they can. But lots of workers are on the road either on single lengthy return journeys or away for multiple days at a time. Relying on a single charge at home isn’t an option, and nor is guaranteeing availability of suitable charging when you want it. With an ICE none of this is an issue, and even if you are running low it’s a ten minute stop. No biggie out of your working day. Added to that is the total unreliability of manufacturers’ charging figures which are a complete con. Under any other circumstance there would be a big regulatory issue but what we have currently is legalised lying in mileage ranges because governments are happy for people to be misled because it advances their agenda. But people aren’t stupid. We all know that the range figures are rubbish and we should cut them by 33% to get the real world figure. 200 miles is next to useless. I can’t recall where I was reading the other day, it may have been an industry source saying that EV drivers are increasingly switching back to ICE cars when they change because their experience with EV’s has been so poor. " everyone has their own experience but I've had no issues with finding a charger and often will charge while doing other stuff. Even when away it's been no dramas. But also I don't drive three plus hours straight without a break. I've had no work that expects me to do this. And I've found the range to be fairly reliable. As much as any ICE I've had. It's certainly not a third out. It's each to their own. But I've had none of the horror stories people talk about with EV. It's a nicer drive and I enjoy the acceleration. I joined for the tax. I'd probably choose ev without the tax breaks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Now Labour will take global lead on climate action, Ed Miliband says No comment from Ed on who’s paying. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/01/labour-will-take-global-lead-on-climate-action-ed-miliband-vows" First lemmings off the cliff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
. Sure, we could put fingers in our ears, covering our eyes, trying to pretend that the world is flat too. . Or get on and prepare for the changed reality, from the fantasy that benefits a very tiny number of hyper-wealthy individuals.
We can follow and be behind more of the world, or take advantage of opportunities. We already have too many homes that badly need insulation, so opportunities exist to prepare for a changing climate and help to save people some money.
We can find opportunities and become leaders of our own future or stagnate and just swell the fortunes of the wrong people. Sure, we can obsess about some technical details, that will mean little in the longer term. It's seeming like classical attempts at misdirection. In any event, the party has no credible for government, they've just laid out some shiny trinkets and play with those with emotions to be massaged | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are a party with endemic global heating denial . Sure, we could put fingers in our ears, covering our eyes, trying to pretend that the world is flat too. . Or get on and prepare for the changed reality, from the fantasy that benefits a very tiny number of hyper-wealthy individuals.
We can follow and be behind more of the world, or take advantage of opportunities. We already have too many homes that badly need insulation, so opportunities exist to prepare for a changing climate and help to save people some money.
We can find opportunities and become leaders of our own future or stagnate and just swell the fortunes of the wrong people. Sure, we can obsess about some technical details, that will mean little in the longer term. It's seeming like classical attempts at misdirection. In any event, the party has no credible for government, they've just laid out some shiny trinkets and play with those with emotions to be massaged"Works though. Look how many people on here have a serious boner for pretending climate change isn't happening. And lap up the nonsense about it all being bollocks because someone in the green party is waiting for a quote on a heat pump. The anti-climate misinformation, misdirection and distraction is extremely well funded, and does enough to convince people who aren't paying proper attention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The anti-climate misinformation, misdirection and distraction is extremely well funded, and does enough to convince people who aren't paying proper attention. " If you can find it anywhere to watch Liz Bonnins documentary has been taken down for exposing climate damage caused by the meat industry and our in particular our diets 80% of the world's agricultural land is used to raise livestock for meat and dairy.which causes significant climate damage. Animal agriculture — livestock and animal feed is a significant driver of deforestation, and is also responsible for approximately 60% of direct global greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/bbc-pulls-meat-documentary-from-iplayer-after-nfu-complaint | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The anti-climate misinformation, misdirection and distraction is extremely well funded, and does enough to convince people who aren't paying proper attention. If you can find it anywhere to watch Liz Bonnins documentary has been taken down for exposing climate damage caused by the meat industry and our in particular our diets 80% of the world's agricultural land is used to raise livestock for meat and dairy.which causes significant climate damage. Animal agriculture — livestock and animal feed is a significant driver of deforestation, and is also responsible for approximately 60% of direct global greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/bbc-pulls-meat-documentary-from-iplayer-after-nfu-complaint" This is the same organisation who’s seminar I recently attended estowing the benefits of tree planting and habitat creation to mitigate climate change You could not make it up https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/business-management/agricultural-transition/alternative-land-uses-experts-offer-agroforestry-guidance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look how many people on here have a serious boner for pretending climate change isn't happening." No one is claiming that climate change isn't happening, it clearly is. It's just that most people don't think that it's an emergency, and some think that it will be easier and cheaper to just adapt to the change rather than trying to stop it. "And lap up the nonsense about it all being bollocks because someone in the green party is waiting for a quote on a heat pump." No one thinks that the Green party leader waiting for a quote invalidates the climate change argument. But lots of people think that if a prominent Green activist doesn't follow her own teachings, that subtracts credibility from her claim that it's vital we all act as quickly as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are a party with endemic global heating denial . Sure, we could put fingers in our ears, covering our eyes, trying to pretend that the world is flat too. . Or get on and prepare for the changed reality, from the fantasy that benefits a very tiny number of hyper-wealthy individuals.
We can follow and be behind more of the world, or take advantage of opportunities. We already have too many homes that badly need insulation, so opportunities exist to prepare for a changing climate and help to save people some money.
We can find opportunities and become leaders of our own future or stagnate and just swell the fortunes of the wrong people. Sure, we can obsess about some technical details, that will mean little in the longer term. It's seeming like classical attempts at misdirection. In any event, the party has no credible for government, they've just laid out some shiny trinkets and play with those with emotions to be massaged"If people want to better insulate their homes nobody is stopping them. I’m sure there are plenty of private businesses across the country willing to provide the service. You just look them up on Google, get some quotes (assuming you don’t have Denyer’s problem and can’t get any of course) and away you go. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Works though. Look how many people on here have a serious boner for pretending climate change isn't happening. And lap up the nonsense about it all being bollocks because someone in the green party is waiting for a quote on a heat pump. The anti-climate misinformation, misdirection and distraction is extremely well funded, and does enough to convince people who aren't paying proper attention. " ********************************* "People who aren't paying proper attention..." How patronising, coming from one who manages to include the vulgar terms 'boner' and 'bollocks' in a post about the Earth's natural cycle......! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If people want to better insulate their homes nobody is stopping them. " Local authorities and historic England will There are 50,000 listed buildings in uk and 10,000 conservation areas I can’t speak for your local authority but if I put sealed glazing units, PV, or external insulation on my G2 flat on Plymouth hoe I will soon have enforcement around from the council. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/13-02-23-conservation_area_restrictions_are_stifling_climate_action_new_research_finds/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"people who aren't paying proper attention. " Farage did not say he wasn’t paying attention, nor anyone else He said the agenda being rolled out is near pointless in the uk and will achieve no global impact, and at an enormous cost to uk taxpayers. Planting trees on farmland instead of in high carbon footprint urban locations being one example. Plymouth city council made national headlines cutting down 96 established trees, to enable a city centre revamp than had gone from £4.2m to currently £36.8m cost, with some saplings being planted that will take decades to establish carbon capture that equals what was felled. We are being fed shite on this subject. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Look how many people on here have a serious boner for pretending climate change isn't happening. No one is claiming that climate change isn't happening, it clearly is. It's just that most people don't think that it's an emergency, and some think that it will be easier and cheaper to just adapt to the change rather than trying to stop it. And lap up the nonsense about it all being bollocks because someone in the green party is waiting for a quote on a heat pump. No one thinks that the Green party leader waiting for a quote invalidates the climate change argument. But lots of people think that if a prominent Green activist doesn't follow her own teachings, that subtracts credibility from her claim that it's vital we all act as quickly as possible." Interesting, but you're clearly not paying attention to what people are saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Works though. Look how many people on here have a serious boner for pretending climate change isn't happening. And lap up the nonsense about it all being bollocks because someone in the green party is waiting for a quote on a heat pump. The anti-climate misinformation, misdirection and distraction is extremely well funded, and does enough to convince people who aren't paying proper attention. ********************************* "People who aren't paying proper attention..." How patronising, coming from one who manages to include the vulgar terms 'boner' and 'bollocks' in a post about the Earth's natural cycle......!" As an example! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"people who aren't paying proper attention. Farage did not say he wasn’t paying attention, nor anyone else " No, Farage is banking on people not paying proper attention. Just the same as with most of their policies. " He said the agenda being rolled out is near pointless in the uk and will achieve no global impact, and at an enormous cost to uk taxpayers. " Which of course is a lie, and is banking on people just believing they him instead of looking into the situation. " Planting trees on farmland instead of in high carbon footprint urban locations being one example. Plymouth city council made national headlines cutting down 96 established trees, to enable a city centre revamp than had gone from £4.2m to currently £36.8m cost, with some saplings being planted that will take decades to establish carbon capture that equals what was felled. We are being fed shite on this subject. " Planting trees is one very small part of the solution. No one is saying that it will solve the problem. Just provides a sliver of help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"people who aren't paying proper attention. Farage did not say he wasn’t paying attention, nor anyone else No, Farage is banking on people not paying proper attention. Just the same as with most of their policies. He said the agenda being rolled out is near pointless in the uk and will achieve no global impact, and at an enormous cost to uk taxpayers. Which of course is a lie, and is banking on people just believing they him instead of looking into the situation. Planting trees on farmland instead of in high carbon footprint urban locations being one example. Plymouth city council made national headlines cutting down 96 established trees, to enable a city centre revamp than had gone from £4.2m to currently £36.8m cost, with some saplings being planted that will take decades to establish carbon capture that equals what was felled. We are being fed shite on this subject. Planting trees is one very small part of the solution. No one is saying that it will solve the problem. Just provides a sliver of help." If 8bn people turned to a vegetable diet today, and if what I’ve linked above is correct, green house gas emissions will fall immediately by 60%. All the lost jobs could be reemployed in arable farming Would this not be a good place to start ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE " And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? " Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? " It is short journeys that are more efficient, I got that the wrong way, and please use google for info on the emissions and energy needed to create and run an EV, no need to take my word for it… let me know if you find something that contradicts what I’ve said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"people who aren't paying proper attention. Farage did not say he wasn’t paying attention, nor anyone else No, Farage is banking on people not paying proper attention. Just the same as with most of their policies. He said the agenda being rolled out is near pointless in the uk and will achieve no global impact, and at an enormous cost to uk taxpayers. Which of course is a lie, and is banking on people just believing they him instead of looking into the situation. Planting trees on farmland instead of in high carbon footprint urban locations being one example. Plymouth city council made national headlines cutting down 96 established trees, to enable a city centre revamp than had gone from £4.2m to currently £36.8m cost, with some saplings being planted that will take decades to establish carbon capture that equals what was felled. We are being fed shite on this subject. Planting trees is one very small part of the solution. No one is saying that it will solve the problem. Just provides a sliver of help." I walked around those fields in crediton, listened to the farmer who is the biggest meat supplier to restaurants in Devon. He explained how he’s being paid for planting trees, the species, the methods, alley planting, shade cover etc. all good stuff but only if your being paid to do it But as he said it will do nothing for polluted urban areas The BNG agenda on new build is another example. Developers forced to purchase a 30 year wildlife/habitat contract on existing habitats, not creating new ones. The cost paid by the home buyer (range £1000-£2000 per property) who will not benefit. Their new build properties garden not big enough to plant their own tree, but they’ve paid for a living tree possibly located hundreds of miles away. Any BNG woodland creation, a potential cash cow for land owners, may then become permanent woodland its land use not reversible to farming. https://environmentbank.com/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there." Any more weight is more tyre pollution On the link referenced above you would need 1000 cars (however they are powered) without tyres to negate the tyre emissions of one car. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Any more weight is more tyre pollution On the link referenced above you would need 1000 cars (however they are powered) without tyres to negate the tyre emissions of one car. " That is a lot of emissions, seems like tyres are flying under the radar | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help."but isn’t there science that disagrees with the climate science? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Any more weight is more tyre pollution On the link referenced above you would need 1000 cars (however they are powered) without tyres to negate the tyre emissions of one car. That is a lot of emissions, seems like tyres are flying under the radar " Only if you are the Dukes of Hazard (subtle I know) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it?" I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"people who aren't paying proper attention. Farage did not say he wasn’t paying attention, nor anyone else No, Farage is banking on people not paying proper attention. Just the same as with most of their policies. He said the agenda being rolled out is near pointless in the uk and will achieve no global impact, and at an enormous cost to uk taxpayers. Which of course is a lie, and is banking on people just believing they him instead of looking into the situation. Planting trees on farmland instead of in high carbon footprint urban locations being one example. Plymouth city council made national headlines cutting down 96 established trees, to enable a city centre revamp than had gone from £4.2m to currently £36.8m cost, with some saplings being planted that will take decades to establish carbon capture that equals what was felled. We are being fed shite on this subject. Planting trees is one very small part of the solution. No one is saying that it will solve the problem. Just provides a sliver of help. If 8bn people turned to a vegetable diet today, and if what I’ve linked above is correct, green house gas emissions will fall immediately by 60%. All the lost jobs could be reemployed in arable farming Would this not be a good place to start ? " No. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels?" That is what I was thinking 
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? " Nothing, it's nonsense, there's no scenario that this works, aside from abandoning the planet and moving to mars. Ridiculous. " Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting, "I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.but isn’t there science that disagrees with the climate science?"Yes. 0.1% of scientists (all of which who are funded through the fossil fuels industry) say that it's not happening, nothing to see here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting, "This is a nice example of how Reform policies contradict eachother. I also maintain that Reform have an easy ride in the media, they're rarely properly challenged. Could probably say the same of every party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting,
I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck”"He might, but he might not. A fundamental problem when dealing with Farage is the same problem people have dealing with Trump, they attack the person. This creates camps for and against, and the conversation dissolves into nothing more than right or wrong for attacking them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting,
I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck”
He might, but he might not. A fundamental problem when dealing with Farage is the same problem people have dealing with Trump, they attack the person.
This creates camps for and against, and the conversation dissolves into nothing more than right or wrong for attacking them.
"I wasn’t saying what Farage will say (all bets are off with that grifter and it will probably be whatever his funders want) that’s why I said “some will say” as in his supporters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting,
I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck”
He might, but he might not. A fundamental problem when dealing with Farage is the same problem people have dealing with Trump, they attack the person.
This creates camps for and against, and the conversation dissolves into nothing more than right or wrong for attacking them.
I wasn’t saying what Farage will say (all bets are off with that grifter and it will probably be whatever his funders want) that’s why I said “some will say” as in his supporters."I wasn't referring to you or your comment, just in general. I think the phrase you have used in the past, playing the man. This is how I see political commentators, journalists and people who have an axe to grind with the Farage's and Trump's of this world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting,
I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck”
He might, but he might not. A fundamental problem when dealing with Farage is the same problem people have dealing with Trump, they attack the person.
This creates camps for and against, and the conversation dissolves into nothing more than right or wrong for attacking them.
I wasn’t saying what Farage will say (all bets are off with that grifter and it will probably be whatever his funders want) that’s why I said “some will say” as in his supporters.
I wasn't referring to you or your comment, just in general.
I think the phrase you have used in the past, playing the man.
This is how I see political commentators, journalists and people who have an axe to grind with the Farage's and Trump's of this world. "Ah ok wasn’t clear from your post. I would love to put that question to Farage and see how he can square the circle! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we take Farage’s idea of working to live with it rather than trying to stop climate change, what would that look like? Would we need to drop European borders to allow free migration as we learn to live with people needing to move from areas that are uninhabitable? What else would be needed to live with it? I think you just hit a contradictory nail on the head… 1. Climate change will make areas of the planet uninhabitable (or highly difficult) 2. The majority of those areas fall within what is generally today still considered third world (and certainly not white European) 3. This will drive human migration that will inevitably put pressure on the borders of those countries that will maintain a better more liveable climate (access to food and resources) 4. So if we do not tackle or try to tackle or mitigate climate change, how are we going to manage our borders and immigration levels? That is what I was thinking
If the question was presented to Farage, if we learn to live it, would you open our borders for mass immigration due to climate change? The answer to that question would be very interesting,
I think some will just say “not our problem where you were born, tough luck”
He might, but he might not. A fundamental problem when dealing with Farage is the same problem people have dealing with Trump, they attack the person.
This creates camps for and against, and the conversation dissolves into nothing more than right or wrong for attacking them.
I wasn’t saying what Farage will say (all bets are off with that grifter and it will probably be whatever his funders want) that’s why I said “some will say” as in his supporters.
I wasn't referring to you or your comment, just in general.
I think the phrase you have used in the past, playing the man.
This is how I see political commentators, journalists and people who have an axe to grind with the Farage's and Trump's of this world.
Ah ok wasn’t clear from your post.
I would love to put that question to Farage and see how he can square the circle!"So would I 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I do not know… Does Reform (and therefore Farage and Tice) accept that climate change is happening? Assuming they do, and regardless of whether that is a natural cycle, man made/contributed, or something we can tackle or mitigate…if it is real then mass migration is inevitable once famines happen and wars erupt to take control of decreasing resources. So when that happens, and it will, what does that means for the borders of more temperate countries and immigration? " They accept climate change is happening, they don't accept that net zero is the answer. The line is learn to live with it, put efforts into that, but that is unclear. As you say the outcome of temp rises around the globe will more than likely cause more migration. I'm not convinced the E2E policy is considered past the headline. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I do not know… Does Reform (and therefore Farage and Tice) accept that climate change is happening? Assuming they do, and regardless of whether that is a natural cycle, man made/contributed, or something we can tackle or mitigate…if it is real then mass migration is inevitable once famines happen and wars erupt to take control of decreasing resources. So when that happens, and it will, what does that means for the borders of more temperate countries and immigration? They accept climate change is happening, they don't accept that net zero is the answer. The line is learn to live with it, put efforts into that, but that is unclear. As you say the outcome of temp rises around the globe will more than likely cause more migration. I'm not convinced the E2E policy is considered past the headline." Not more than likely. Absolutely inevitable. If you lived in a central African country and the risk that your family faced starvation or dying of thirst was increasing year-on-year what would you do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Any more weight is more tyre pollution On the link referenced above you would need 1000 cars (however they are powered) without tyres to negate the tyre emissions of one car. That is a lot of emissions, seems like tyres are flying under the radar " based on very custory looks at the links provided it seems the US have regs and EU are looking to introduce something. Didn't mention UK. The same site suggested that it was all a bit complex and can't be boiled down to simply heavy equals bad. EVs having bigger wheels may help reduce the impact of increased weight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I do not know… Does Reform (and therefore Farage and Tice) accept that climate change is happening? Assuming they do, and regardless of whether that is a natural cycle, man made/contributed, or something we can tackle or mitigate…if it is real then mass migration is inevitable once famines happen and wars erupt to take control of decreasing resources. So when that happens, and it will, what does that means for the borders of more temperate countries and immigration? " Richard Tice has previously suggested that it's a hoax and that it's not happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 8bn people turned to a vegetable diet today, and if what I’ve linked above is correct, green house gas emissions will fall immediately by 60%. All the lost jobs could be reemployed in arable farming" But they wouldn't be. There isn't enough arable land in the UK to supply the whole population with vegetable foods. Cows and pigs will happily live in fields that occasionally flood, or are full of stones, or just too uneven which makes them unploughable. Sheep will live on very steep and barren hillsides that have no other farming purpose. If you got rid of all the food animals, the majority of the land they currently occupy would just be left fallow. The massive amount of vegetables needed would create a lot more jobs, but not in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 8bn people turned to a vegetable diet today, and if what I’ve linked above is correct, green house gas emissions will fall immediately by 60%. All the lost jobs could be reemployed in arable farming But they wouldn't be. There isn't enough arable land in the UK to supply the whole population with vegetable foods. Cows and pigs will happily live in fields that occasionally flood, or are full of stones, or just too uneven which makes them unploughable. Sheep will live on very steep and barren hillsides that have no other farming purpose. If you got rid of all the food animals, the majority of the land they currently occupy would just be left fallow. The massive amount of vegetables needed would create a lot more jobs, but not in the UK." Well at least we can turn Conservative HQ’s garden into allotments, oh and Sunak’s family home garden, as they won’t be needed soon | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there." Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far!" What’s the plan if the technology doesn’t improve? Basing policy on some kind of blind faith isn’t rational. Ultimately if the technology improves, range and reliability improves, resale values improve, and the car manufacturers produce products that people want to buy at a price they can afford, there will be no reason for the government to be involved at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! What’s the plan if the technology doesn’t improve? Basing policy on some kind of blind faith isn’t rational. Ultimately if the technology improves, range and reliability improves, resale values improve, and the car manufacturers produce products that people want to buy at a price they can afford, there will be no reason for the government to be involved at all. " Note you didn’t respond to Fabio’s point on tax breaks. Shouldn’t the UK be incentivising the R&D of new technology? On other points I agree. Make EVs the better option for the consumer and sales will rocket and ICEs will fall away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far!" Bit of a typo in there… The 10 year old tesla model s looked at had only LOST 10% of their original power…. 
That’s on me!! Makes much more sense now!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! Bit of a typo in there… The 10 year old tesla model s looked at had only LOST 10% of their original power….
That’s on me!! Makes much more sense now! "The issue is consumer confidence, there simply isn't any. There needs to be a spurt of tech delivery to expedite the change or it will keep floundering in the long grass, and we will see no advancement until consumers consider a used EV to be an option to purchase. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The issue is consumer confidence, there simply isn't any. There needs to be a spurt of tech delivery to expedite the change or it will keep floundering in the long grass, and we will see no advancement until consumers consider a used EV to be an option to purchase. " Pretty much this.. Were set up here with solar and battery etc so have the means but there simply isn't the charging capacity across the country and for the journeys we need to be ready for to support family etc.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought an electric car was more efficient on a longer journey, if it works out they are not that is not good! The other consideration with electric cars is they take a lot of energy to build and the lifespan is so much shorter that I believe they are more polluting than ICE And you are basing this on what scientific evidence? Well EVs are around 25% heavier the ICEs in a like for like comparison. That's more fuel, more tyres, more road wear. All large energy consumers. That's pure science right there. Not necessarily …. Because EV technology is so “new” in relative terms we don’t know how long the batteries will truly last…. But Tesla while back did a survey of their oldest “10 year old +” model S cars… and found on average that the batteries had only about 10% of full power (mileage range) for as they were new… Ev tech will get better with development… just like ICE tech did! the cars attainable charging speed, yes the infrastructure and the charging port speed, li-on batteries have now progressed to LFP batteries, which are cheaper to build, more efficient and reliable The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! Bit of a typo in there… The 10 year old tesla model s looked at had only LOST 10% of their original power….
That’s on me!! Makes much more sense now!
The issue is consumer confidence, there simply isn't any.
There needs to be a spurt of tech delivery to expedite the change or it will keep floundering in the long grass, and we will see no advancement until consumers consider a used EV to be an option to purchase.
"And cost. My old golf will do another 10 years. No way I’d be signed up for £500 a month ev | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far!" We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that." Cooperation Tax [sic] was a typo that made me chuckle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. Cooperation Tax [sic] was a typo that made me chuckle "They've got you over a barrel?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. Cooperation Tax [sic] was a typo that made me chuckle
They've got you over a barrel? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that." I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought." Are you talking globally, or just in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought." For those claimants that bother to do any research at all, they usually ignore the extra taxation, and then count all the tax breaks (R&D, reclaiming VAT, better returns from feed-in tarrifs on the renewables they have, etc), and claim that all of those are subsidies. Of course, those same things don't count as subsidies when they are complaining that green companies don't get enough money from the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Enjoy tootling about at 20 mph when labour introduce them nationwide along with compulsory speed limiting. That's another nice thing about EVs, they are really good at very low speed and use a lot less energy. I was stuck in a queue a few month back and when I got to the cause of it actually had more miles due to it having regeneration.
psssst don't tell nige.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV. Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
"I don't believe they are shit But am in the countryside and don't have a big enough supply for a heat pump and an EV and the property. Still using coal. Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Farage has a long history of climate science denial. Reform and Farage get funding from, for example, Fittriani Hay, wife of James Hay senior exec at BP. Farage only ever mentions the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. In the long term it's much better for the UK economy. The cost is a distraction, if we fail to combat climate change, we'll have much bigger problems. You mean you’d rather not get bogged down in the detail because if we did nobody would bother doing it, so let’s just speak in sweeping generalisations and tell everyone that there isn’t any choice no matter what the cost. To be fair to you that’s what our hapless MP’s have done. Nope. Perhaps you could contribute to the debate by letting us know how you are getting on with your heat pump and EV. This is an excellent example of the poor quality of debate on the side of: not doing anything about climate change to ensure the continuation of profits for the fossil fuels industry.
Not at all it’s a practical question.
No it's a distraction and pointless question. The two items you picked are arbitrary amongst the 100s of things that people can do to reduce their impact.
Either you aren’t committed to your cause, or there is some other reason why you haven’t purchased a heat pump or an EV.
The key here to answer your distraction is "other reason".
Those reasons are likely to be shared by significant portions of the population.
Correct, and this in no way impacts climate science, and does not negate the need to take action
I mean I haven’t bought an EV or a heat pump because they are shit. That’s my excuse.
But you believe in this stuff, or so you say.
I have never said "I believe in this stuff".
As mentioned, these two arbitrary examples are a red herring and don't have any bearing on the need to take action to combat climate change.
So what have you done personally to combat climate change?
Before I answer. If I say "fuck all", does that somehow prove that climate science isn't real, or does it somehow negate the need to tackle climate change?
If I could get some clarity on why you're asking this seemingly irrelevant question, it will help.
To ascertain whether you are just another Green hypocrite like the Green Party’s leader and whether your opinions should be taken seriously.
Ah you're still confused about the heat pump quote thing. Fair play to you.
No, don't take my opinions seriously. You should take climate science seriously.
I have asked you before what steps you personally have taken to combat climate change and you have never come up with anything.
It's a pointless and irrelevant question, no answer I can give will in any way effect climate science and our need to tackle it.
Just continuing to repeat “it’s the science” and “we [ie everyone else but not me] must do something” doesn’t really advance anything.
No one is saying this. Maybe if you spent as much time attacking people who have some understanding of the topic, actually learning about the topic, you'd be less confused and angry.
The key issue with Net Zero of course is whether it is a practical policy to pursue. If its key proponents can’t be arsed to do anything about it then it doesn’t really suggest that the rest of us should bother.
It's very very easy to convince some people that we should prioritise oil company profits over doing something about climate change. What a world we live in.
The majority of us seem to be interested in climate change, I read 76% of uk polled are concerned about it.
Not interested in it at all unless it makes financial sense. I'll be long gone by the time it's a real problem.
But I don’t see us giving up meat (73% uk carnivore diet) or 34 million cars on uk roads/ 4.5% of them electric, or investing in heat pumps (0.19% uk households have one/ 81% of Japan)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000bqsh
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/44871-how-many-britons-will-attempt-vegan-diet-and-lifes" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the Guardian India has six hundred coal power plants and China has 1,142
I don't see how going net zero by 2050 will make that much of a impact apart from in our pocket
Maybe us in the West need to stop outsourcing all our manufacturing and dirty industries to India and China?" don't bring back all the shit hear we don't want it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. Are you talking globally, or just in the UK?" I'm talking about on the fab forums. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. For those claimants that bother to do any research at all, they usually ignore the extra taxation, and then count all the tax breaks (R&D, reclaiming VAT, better returns from feed-in tarrifs on the renewables they have, etc), and claim that all of those are subsidies. Of course, those same things don't count as subsidies when they are complaining that green companies don't get enough money from the government." Thank you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. Are you talking globally, or just in the UK? I'm talking about on the fab forums. " Are you talking about global subsides or UK subsidies for the fossil fuels industry? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. Are you talking globally, or just in the UK? I'm talking about on the fab forums. Are you talking about global subsides or UK subsidies for the fossil fuels industry?" Again I was talking about these forums with claims both ways. Whether they mean UK only or international is not clear. Personally more interested in UK as that's where I live and vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The interesting thing for me is that we do subsidise the oil and gas industry, mainly thru tax breaks… but subsidising green energy is apparently a step too far! We don't subsidise the oil and gas industry. They get tax breaks (on R&D), but they're the same tax breaks that every company in the UK is entitled to. We do on the other hand charge oil and gas companies double the normal cooperation tax, and then add an extra fuel levy on top of that. I see this subsidising oil and gas companies claim every now and then on here, though not normally from Fabio. However have yet to understand what subsidies they get over and above what a green energy company gets. There must be something for the claim to be repeated over and over again, I would have thought. Are you talking globally, or just in the UK? I'm talking about on the fab forums. Are you talking about global subsides or UK subsidies for the fossil fuels industry? Again I was talking about these forums with claims both ways. Whether they mean UK only or international is not clear. Personally more interested in UK as that's where I live and vote" International is the key piece of information when discussing climate change. It's a global issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you talking about global subsides or UK subsidies for the fossil fuels industry?" "Again I was talking about these forums with claims both ways. Whether they mean UK only or international is not clear. Personally more interested in UK as that's where I live and vote" "International is the key piece of information when discussing climate change. It's a global issue." If the people making the claim mean internationally, they should be saying "they give subsidies", not "we give subsidies". Because 'we', the UK, don't. Perhaps if those people made their claims clearer, people might be more inclined to listen to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
