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 |
| |||
| 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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well this has put the brakes on EVs I'd imagine. I'm off to buy a big old diesel engine car "______________________________________ So true....awaiting inevitable fall out between Trump and his fanboy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all." What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. " We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts " Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well this has put the brakes on EVs I'd imagine. I'm off to buy a big old diesel engine car "In the us? …. Yes. No, sort of! Yes, there is a difference in the price between ICE and EV cars in which EV are slightly (but nowhere near as much as in the uk) more expensive Yes the “federal” EV grant is going, however..1) not all EV ever qualified for the grant (cars priced over 50,000 dollars) 2) depends on how much of it was “us manufactured and sourced, so that accounted for either 7500 dollars, 3750 dollars..or nothing! Sidebar: not all tesla’s qualified for the 7500 discount! The model Y did, the model 3 didn’t!.. and got 3750! Sort of… 3) there is nothing to stop states giving their own grants… about half of states do in some form! Just lik last time trump pulled the us out of the climate accord, there were 18 states that stated they would continue to act as if the agreement was in place… also it doesn’t affect state laws for example California and in clean energy mandates and emissions regulations and standards No….. because the biggest selling cars in the us are the pickup truck type cars… for example, bigger selling vehicle is the Ford f-150, because the EV version of that , the f-150 lightening, costs way over 50 grand.. it never got the EV grant | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible?" Will it be achievable. Ignoring everything that has gone up to now, the global population is forecast to increase by 2Bn by 2080, a 25% increase. That’s a farm the size of a continent to feed them , half a billion homes to be built, a billion cars, half a billion gas boilers etc The UN already claims global food production needs a 50% uplift by 2050. All this produce will be farmed overseas arriving by diesel powered ships. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well this has put the brakes on EVs I'd imagine. I'm off to buy a big old diesel engine car "You EV needs electric to charge at the moment 10.26 21/01/2025 62.7% is from gas? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well this has put the brakes on EVs I'd imagine. I'm off to buy a big old diesel engine car
You EV needs electric to charge at the moment 10.26 21/01/2025 62.7% is from gas?"Tyre particulate pollution is up to 1800 times higher than ICE tailpipe. Maybe that should be addressed to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an opportunity for Europe, Japan and China. Investing in clean technologies will bring a 20 year lead over the US, and as renewables are refined will bring cost benefits in manufacturing. It's like a country deciding to stay in the steam age long after the internal combustion engine. " So you don't think cheep gas now would posably make manufacturing of soler and wind cheaper, excelarating more soler on homes and wind generation. And if energy was cheaper the country might go back to sum sort of growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible?" It's a yes but at a cost that can be affordable to all. Or would you scrap gas Boilers tomorrow meaning mass demand for heat pumps, in turn driving up there cost. Only they need electricity to run right so would then need to light up coal fired power stations to produce the exta demand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts "A previous chancellor, Phillip Hammond said the UK can’t afford the £1trn cost of climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? It's a yes but at a cost that can be affordable to all. Or would you scrap gas Boilers tomorrow meaning mass demand for heat pumps, in turn driving up there cost. Only they need electricity to run right so would then need to light up coal fired power stations to produce the exta demand." Try fitting a heat pump to my third floor flat in a grade two listed building on Plymouth hoe, surrounded by about 250 similar listed buildings mostly converted to flats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? It's a yes but at a cost that can be affordable to all. Or would you scrap gas Boilers tomorrow meaning mass demand for heat pumps, in turn driving up there cost. Only they need electricity to run right so would then need to light up coal fired power stations to produce the exta demand." As I'm sure you know, transitioning off fossil fuels is better for the economy and consumer in the medium to long term. And as I'm sure you know, the cost of the climate changing will vastly outweigh any short term costs to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. Not sure how your question about boilers is related to my question to the other chap who implied that doing something about climate change makes no sense at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible?" We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an opportunity for Europe, Japan and China. Investing in clean technologies will bring a 20 year lead over the US, and as renewables are refined will bring cost benefits in manufacturing. It's like a country deciding to stay in the steam age long after the internal combustion engine. So you don't think cheep gas now would posably make manufacturing of soler and wind cheaper, excelarating more soler on homes and wind generation. And if energy was cheaper the country might go back to sum sort of growth. " Only as a temporary measure in transition. Look the evidence is overwhelming. Burning fossil fuels causes climate change which will have an ever increasing negative impact on mankind. It's time for action. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. " I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is an opportunity for Europe, Japan and China. Investing in clean technologies will bring a 20 year lead over the US, and as renewables are refined will bring cost benefits in manufacturing. It's like a country deciding to stay in the steam age long after the internal combustion engine. So you don't think cheep gas now would posably make manufacturing of soler and wind cheaper, excelarating more soler on homes and wind generation. And if energy was cheaper the country might go back to sum sort of growth. " The world needs a step back from the gavin newsomes, starmers, sadick kahn, and the joey bidens. Stop trying to meet agendas, set realistic goals, then build an electrical infrastructure that can support the electrical demand goals trying to be achieved. Latest trip to UK windmills sitting idle more than they were spinning! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea." It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts " Complex civilisation only became possible due to climate conditions being suitable for agriculture and from there resource centralisation. We're very much looking at the possibility of a world incapable of sustaining complex civilisation, where COP meetings have become little more than green washing attempts by the political class to pretend that business as usual and the current broken status quo dependent on the delusion of infinite growth is able to deal with it. It can't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach." Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere." Carbon output varies by country, USA 14 tonnes per capita, China 9 tonnes, India 1.8 tonnes. Global average 4.8 tonnes per capita Mature trees carbon capture reported at 25kg pa, on the reported figures that’s equivalent to about 192 trees required per person ( X 8bn) to capture the worlds human carbon output. (one trillion five hundred thirty-six billion trees) add 25% on top for next half century population growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere." It is sensible to build an infrastructure that can accommodate the needs of the country without risk of failure. This is not complicated and why it is taking longer than you want it for the transition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea." So I guess it's OK to import gas to make electricity but not to drill for our own. So if the market goes up everybody suffers and that is OK so long as we save the planet. So I guess the against vote is also against airport expansion. Gatwick and Heathrow?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is sensible to build an infrastructure that can accommodate the needs of the country without risk of failure. This is not complicated and why it is taking longer than you want it for the transition. " What has what I want got to do with anything? That indicates a gross misunderstanding of the situation at best. We've dicked about doing nothing but token actions since the 80s and people are advocating not only dragging our collective heels even longer, but actively opening more fossil fuel mines/drilling/fracking. Beggars belief really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. So I guess it's OK to import gas to make electricity but not to drill for our own. So if the market goes up everybody suffers and that is OK so long as we save the planet. So I guess the against vote is also against airport expansion. Gatwick and Heathrow??" No clue how this is related to the points I was making or the questions I asked the other chap. Seems like you've made a bunch of assumptions (incorrect) and then argued against those. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is sensible to build an infrastructure that can accommodate the needs of the country without risk of failure. This is not complicated and why it is taking longer than you want it for the transition. What has what I want got to do with anything? That indicates a gross misunderstanding of the situation at best. We've dicked about doing nothing but token actions since the 80s and people are advocating not only dragging our collective heels even longer, but actively opening more fossil fuel mines/drilling/fracking. Beggars belief really. " No it doesn't, we can't rely on other forms of energy to maintain a stable infrastructure. As I said further up, this part of the puzzle is hard for some people to grasp, however I don't blame them because there is no roadmap other than some arbitrary dates. The reason for that in my opinion is it will simply upset people when they realise we wont be off fossil fuels for many years to come. If the government set out a plan to deliver change but that plan was 50 years ahead and the reasons were explained, would that be better news than what you have today, or worse? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is sensible to build an infrastructure that can accommodate the needs of the country without risk of failure. This is not complicated and why it is taking longer than you want it for the transition. What has what I want got to do with anything? That indicates a gross misunderstanding of the situation at best. We've dicked about doing nothing but token actions since the 80s and people are advocating not only dragging our collective heels even longer, but actively opening more fossil fuel mines/drilling/fracking. Beggars belief really. " So if is your view should we stop using gas tomorrow and just turn it off and stop using it sure that might help the planet. But if the UK is going to import energy in the way of gass but its out there for the taking why not. Norway has sergested there fields are running low. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK can give people cheaper energy, without any new drilling. It has just chosen not to. It would be easier and quicker to get those decisions underpinning that, than drilling. In any event, it would also be more intelligent to prepare for and implement technologies that prevent energy waste and that have zero carbon dependency. These can also help to reduce bills and increase energy independence. Which turkeys are going to be voting for Christmas to be brought forward early? "Can you explain more on cheap energy? And prevent enagy waste? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. Carbon output varies by country, USA 14 tonnes per capita, China 9 tonnes, India 1.8 tonnes. Global average 4.8 tonnes per capita Mature trees carbon capture reported at 25kg pa, on the reported figures that’s equivalent to about 192 trees required per person ( X 8bn) to capture the worlds human carbon output. (one trillion five hundred thirty-six billion trees) add 25% on top for next half century population growth. " That's grate news as I planted 500 trees about 6 years ago around 100 mature ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should be utilising our resources, not doing so makes no sense at all. What about tackling climate change? Surely it makes sense not to do something about it. We need a strong economy to make significant change, this part of the puzzle is the Achilles heel for climate change enthusiasts Is that a yes or no to tackling climate change being sensible? We don't tackle climate change, we alter our outputs as way of influencing it. To arrive at a position that affords us the opportunities as a society to make the changes that can influence our climate we need to have an economy significant enough to begin to build the infrastructure and transition over to it without impacting the services our society needs for hospitals, food, transport, heat and on and on. I'll take that as a no. Meanwhile as we hurtle full speed into releasing as much greenhouse gas as possible, people are still arguing that it's a good idea. It wasn't a no, it was an idea of a more measured approach. Fair enough. So it is sensible to not pump yet more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is sensible to build an infrastructure that can accommodate the needs of the country without risk of failure. This is not complicated and why it is taking longer than you want it for the transition. What has what I want got to do with anything? That indicates a gross misunderstanding of the situation at best. We've dicked about doing nothing but token actions since the 80s and people are advocating not only dragging our collective heels even longer, but actively opening more fossil fuel mines/drilling/fracking. Beggars belief really. No it doesn't, we can't rely on other forms of energy to maintain a stable infrastructure. As I said further up, this part of the puzzle is hard for some people to grasp, however I don't blame them because there is no roadmap other than some arbitrary dates. The reason for that in my opinion is it will simply upset people when they realise we wont be off fossil fuels for many years to come. If the government set out a plan to deliver change but that plan was 50 years ahead and the reasons were explained, would that be better news than what you have today, or worse? " I think most who accept this is a long process also accept that until the country is ready to fully go to green energy then we need fossil fuels. What's odd is why some think it's better to import fossil fuels rather than use what's already here. Surely that is more damaging to the environment as well as more costly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
