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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Global population growth is projected to increase by 25% by 2080, another two billion people. Most of that increase from emerging economies, aspiring to western living standards and consumerism Has this been factored into the future carbon footprint predictions. " Really good point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is that there will be no co-ordination or control of how the money will be spent. Money will probably go on vanity projects, bolster paramilitaty forces as has happened in the past or simply disappear through corruption. There is no simple solution but just throwing money at individual countries will produce no results." Exactly, it's impossible to control the spending. All our efforts and resources should go on making our own country more sustainable and improving our environmental defences. That's all we can control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Global population growth is projected to increase by 25% by 2080, another two billion people. Most of that increase from emerging economies, aspiring to western living standards and consumerism Has this been factored into the future carbon footprint predictions. " World overpopulation is cause of all problems in today's World Including food, housing, employment, benefits and on top of that travel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is that there will be no co-ordination or control of how the money will be spent. Money will probably go on vanity projects, bolster paramilitaty forces as has happened in the past or simply disappear through corruption. There is no simple solution but just throwing money at individual countries will produce no results." I read tonight cop has agreed on £300bn funding If my maths is correct that’s 0.03% of annual global gdp; pocket money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is that there will be no co-ordination or control of how the money will be spent. Money will probably go on vanity projects, bolster paramilitaty forces as has happened in the past or simply disappear through corruption. There is no simple solution but just throwing money at individual countries will produce no results. I read tonight cop has agreed on £300bn funding If my maths is correct that’s 0.03% of annual global gdp; pocket money. " Peanuts compared to what the fossil fuels industry gets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Carbon credits, carbon offsetting and use of carbon derivatives make it very unclear who is making real progress. The Ftse350 indices alone has nearly 50 million units of traded carbon credits. It would need an unbiased expert author to explain all this in simple terms and how everything else we read on this subject is at best unreliable " Aren't carbon credits just a massive racket ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble is that there will be no co-ordination or control of how the money will be spent. Money will probably go on vanity projects, bolster paramilitaty forces as has happened in the past or simply disappear through corruption. There is no simple solution but just throwing money at individual countries will produce no results. I read tonight cop has agreed on £300bn funding If my maths is correct that’s 0.03% of annual global gdp; pocket money. " What's the gdp of all the recipient countries ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. " Smart guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy." Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no need for COP meetings if they turn off the volcano's.." Probably one of the most sensible posts I've seen on here in a long while.  | |||
| 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 |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing." US Emissions are decreasing. Its China and India who are accelerating climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing. US Emissions are decreasing. Its China and India who are accelerating climate change." China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe. (Uk manufacturing has been in annual decline since the 1950’s) Should Chinas carbon footprint be viewed proportionately to reflect this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing." Climate change? It's always happened. How much, specifically, can you attribute to mankind? Years ago it was an impending ice age, then global warming now it's climate change to cover all the bases. Gimme a break. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing. US Emissions are decreasing. Its China and India who are accelerating climate change. China manufactures 28% of everything on the globe. (Uk manufacturing has been in annual decline since the 1950’s) Should Chinas carbon footprint be viewed proportionately to reflect this " The main principle should be that the polluter pays. If China doesn't want to pay then I'm sure many countries would be glad to revive their manufacturing sector, and the world would certainly benefit from less disposable plastic rubbish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing. Climate change? It's always happened. How much, specifically, can you attribute to mankind? Years ago it was an impending ice age, then global warming now it's climate change to cover all the bases. Gimme a break." Ah you're back to climate science isn't real again. Fair play to you. You know in the time it takes to deny that science is real ten times on here. You could actually learn about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump will withdraw again from Paris climate accord. Smart guy. Accelerating climate change is "smart"? Amazing. US Emissions are decreasing. Its China and India who are accelerating climate change." The figures quoted from the other guy suggested China is doing pretty well. The US figures will presumably change when Captain Woke removes the US from the Paris climate agreement and starts his policy of making the oil companies as rich as possible regardless of the cost. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too. "What makes you think the money will be spent of villas? What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year)."That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is. This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement. "Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs."Yeah only 1.3 trillion of the 7 is actual subsidies. The so-called researchers basically came up with some number on what they believe is the environmental impact of fossil fuels and called them "implicit subsidies" and took the figure to 7 trillion. In that 1.3 trillion, 270 billion comes from China subsidising their fossil fuel power plants. The next biggest subsidy comes from Saudi. If people cared to read past headlines, one can see how lame that $7 trillion number sounds. And the people who fall for these kind of news unironically make fun of daily mail readers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Those who harm others have precedent to compensate them. Countries may be taking some steps to reduce their Carbon output but it doesn't remove their historic output. And most are still causing significant heating that will impact us all. Sleepwalking into oblivion isn't a reasonable approach " If 'developed' countries are expected to pay for their emissions from a time when climate change was not recognised or understood, then surely this should be offset against the huge benefits which the industrial revolution brought to humanity, not least to a country such as China whose path to prosperity is entirely due to its embrace of the industrial market economy. Alternatively now we understand climate change, let's stop any further fossil fuel led industrial development. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs."Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything. Well fair play. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is an odd morality which says that countries should be held accountable for their Carbon emissions from times when climate change was not recognised, while those countries who are increasing their carbon emissions at a time when it is recognised should be given a free pass." It's not a moral argument, it's a we've-got-to-do-something argument. Aside from 50% or Fab, we've known about carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate since the early 80s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play."We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a moral argument, it's a we've-got-to-do-something argument. Aside from 50% or Fab, we've known about carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate since the early 80s." That's the problem, nothing of any use if being done about it and all that's happening is a lot of people are lining their pockets with tax money from the public purse. Instead of reducing carbon output the UK is looking at storing it? How fucked up is that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play.
We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us."You've not shared anything fact based. Just to remind you "That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number". Meanwhile the IMF has a detailed report about the $7 trillion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a moral argument, it's a we've-got-to-do-something argument. Aside from 50% or Fab, we've known about carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate since the early 80s. That's the problem, nothing of any use if being done about it and all that's happening is a lot of people are lining their pockets with tax money from the public purse. Instead of reducing carbon output the UK is looking at storing it? How fucked up is that?" I agree, pathetically little is being done about it. The $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry gets every year completely dwarfs the amount that's been set aside to tackle the issue. It's a joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All bs...the planets climate is always changing naturally. " This is unrelated to man made climate change. I'd recommend spending 20 mins or so to read up on it. It's easy to understand. " In fact air in uk never been cleaner. " This is unrelated to climate change. CO2 and other greenhouses gasses are pumped into the atmosphere, absorb electromagnetic radiation and reradiated it in the infrared spectrum (IE heat). " Milliband escpecially is guilty of jumping on the 'net zero' bandwagon with unreliable wind and solar power push. This will just keep our energy bills high (uk some of the highest in Europe already) and make him rich. " Transitioning to renewable energy will bring down energy prices in the long term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a moral argument, it's a we've-got-to-do-something argument. Aside from 50% or Fab, we've known about carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate since the early 80s. That's the problem, nothing of any use if being done about it and all that's happening is a lot of people are lining their pockets with tax money from the public purse. Instead of reducing carbon output the UK is looking at storing it? How fucked up is that? I agree, pathetically little is being done about it. The $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry gets every year completely dwarfs the amount that's been set aside to tackle the issue. It's a joke." And even worse, the anti-science lefties who repeatedly spread fake news about the $7 trillion subsidies thereby damaging the movement against climate change movement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play.
We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us.
You've not shared anything fact based. Just to remind you "That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number".
Meanwhile the IMF has a detailed report about the $7 trillion. "It's not an IMF report. It being published in the IMF website doesn't mean IMF endorses it. It's a paper published by some researchers which is not peer reviewed. If you open that paper and read it, you will see what they call "subsidies". They themselves admit that only 1.3 trillion is actually subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by government. The remaining part of the 7 trillion comes from their calculation of "externalities" which they believe is the environmental cost and they conveniently renamed it as "implicit subsidies" for some reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How about everyone going vegetation 60% of farming carbon footprint is from breeding meat for human consumption " Been a veggie for 30 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play.
We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us.
You've not shared anything fact based. Just to remind you "That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number".
Meanwhile the IMF has a detailed report about the $7 trillion.
It's not an IMF report. It being published in the IMF website doesn't mean IMF endorses it. It's a paper published by some researchers which is not peer reviewed.
If you open that paper and read it, you will see what they call "subsidies". They themselves admit that only 1.3 trillion is actually subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by government. The remaining part of the 7 trillion comes from their calculation of "externalities" which they believe is the environmental cost and they conveniently renamed it as "implicit subsidies" for some reason."It’s because it’s absolute nonsense if you stop to think about it for more than a few seconds.As are most papers that try to get credit this way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play.
We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us.
You've not shared anything fact based. Just to remind you "That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number".
Meanwhile the IMF has a detailed report about the $7 trillion.
It's not an IMF report. It being published in the IMF website doesn't mean IMF endorses it. It's a paper published by some researchers which is not peer reviewed.
If you open that paper and read it, you will see what they call "subsidies". They themselves admit that only 1.3 trillion is actually subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by government. The remaining part of the 7 trillion comes from their calculation of "externalities" which they believe is the environmental cost and they conveniently renamed it as "implicit subsidies" for some reason.
It’s because it’s absolute nonsense if you stop to think about it for more than a few seconds.As are most papers that try to get credit this way"Yeah the global GDP is around 100 trillion. Even if we say that one-third of it goes into taxes, it must ring some bells if someone says 7 trillion of the 33 trillion are going as subsidies for fossil fuel companies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Final agreement of 300bn dollars. Good to know our taxes will be buying more villas in Qatar for the kleptocrats of the 'Global South'. Probably a few electric woke Jaguars too.
What makes you think the money will be spent of villas?
What's your view on the $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry receives in subsidies every year? (Increasing year on year).
That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number. If you actually read about what they count as "subsidies", you can see how misleading the number is.
This is the kind of fake news and alarmism that actually sets back the climate change movement.
Yes it's a nonsense figure that includes private investment and figures for 'environmental costs' which are largely invented by NGOs.
Ah the baldrick approach, deny everything.
Well fair play.
We have shared details about how the 7 trilloon number came up. We are denying it based on facts. We are following the scientific approach, instead of believing everything that the headlines tells us.
You've not shared anything fact based. Just to remind you "That $7 trillion "subsidies" is a bullshit number".
Meanwhile the IMF has a detailed report about the $7 trillion.
It's not an IMF report. It being published in the IMF website doesn't mean IMF endorses it. It's a paper published by some researchers which is not peer reviewed.
If you open that paper and read it, you will see what they call "subsidies". They themselves admit that only 1.3 trillion is actually subsidies given to fossil fuel companies by government. The remaining part of the 7 trillion comes from their calculation of "externalities" which they believe is the environmental cost and they conveniently renamed it as "implicit subsidies" for some reason.
It’s because it’s absolute nonsense if you stop to think about it for more than a few seconds.As are most papers that try to get credit this way
Yeah the global GDP is around 100 trillion. Even if we say that one-third of it goes into taxes, it must ring some bells if someone says 7 trillion of the 33 trillion are going as subsidies for fossil fuel companies."I remember one such paper saying the Uk owned an ex colony a ridiculous amount and found by using their logic France would owe England the value of the entirety of the solar system literally(Now it’s farther than that and ever expanding) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is an odd morality which says that countries should be held accountable for their Carbon emissions from times when climate change was not recognised, while those countries who are increasing their carbon emissions at a time when it is recognised should be given a free pass." It's about the principle. Of course, those causing harm, who've gained, should be morally and legally responsible. The how's, to whom, etc is a separate matter. If it was a civil court case, then liability would be assessed first, before the quantum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry gets every year completely dwarfs the amount that's been set aside to tackle the issue. It's a joke." Radio 4's More or Less podcast did an episode on the $7tn figure this very week. You can listen at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0k69pd1 For those that don't have 10 minutes to listen, the actual amount of subsidies is about $1.3tn, almost entirely from a few big countries selling oil cheap (i.e. the buyer of petrol gets the subsidy, not the oil companies). The figures are from 2022, with estimates for current subsidies being around $850bn. And the UK doesn't have any subsidies, instead taking more taxes on fossil fuels than any other type of product. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The $7 trillion that the fossil fuels industry gets every year completely dwarfs the amount that's been set aside to tackle the issue. It's a joke. Radio 4's More or Less podcast did an episode on the $7tn figure this very week. You can listen at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0k69pd1 For those that don't have 10 minutes to listen, the actual amount of subsidies is about $1.3tn, almost entirely from a few big countries selling oil cheap (i.e. the buyer of petrol gets the subsidy, not the oil companies). The figures are from 2022, with estimates for current subsidies being around $850bn. And the UK doesn't have any subsidies, instead taking more taxes on fossil fuels than any other type of product." Very interesting, thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
